wee ἐς hg ἣ ἦν. δι." ~ J μιδ' 4». δ eo Ἢ ri γῇ » 4 . Le eae ae" Ὦ; t ει eee wee ++ pie ew -t set 
tnd ctatede teduetat κυνὶ 3 ines ng ν “ae " FS 7 ὦ ya 7 Peps ee ν᾿ r * eA ae le hae 

ναόν 1 

n> 


er arte bck abe 
ea ne 


ΝΣ --- Fete 


rote 
Cor 


ane 


[ΝΥ OF Pr 


/ δ ἜΜ Og 


* JAN 30 1908. «ἱ 


Ἄς, ΣΕ ἀΝῸ 
“Logica, sewn 


Division Be he | 
044 ἢ 


vet 


ray a8 

eer ce an 
‘i “iia ae ἡ! 
mies 


"Ξ ἂν 
᾿ ἄν ana 
ryt 

cm 


aa oe 


- “ὦ ‘ f 7 
ΤΟΣ ἜΣ 
ΔΝ , ee 
᾿ ᾿ τ ; oy 
7 ν διὰ a, 84 J ᾿ 


OLD TESTAMENT AND SEMITIC STUDIES 


IN MEMORY OF 


WILLIAM RAINEY HARPER 


OLD TESTAMENT AND 
SEMITIC STUDIES 


IN MEMORY OF 


William Ratney Harper 


EDITED BY 


ROBERT FRANCIS HARPER 
FRANCIS BROWN 
GEORGE FOOT MOORE 


VOLUME ONE 


CHICAGO 
THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS 
1908 


CopyRIGHT 1908 By 
THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO 


Published January the tenth, 1908 


Composed and Printed By 
The University of Chicago Press 
Chicago, Illinois, U. S. A. 


PREFATORY NOTE 


1. The editors of these Memorial Volumes wish to express 
their thanks to their fellow-students who have made contributions 
to these volumes for their courteous co-operation in every possible 
manner. 

2. The editors also wish to state that no attempt was made to 
secure absolute uniformity in the matter of typography. In 
general, the rules of the American Journal of Semitic Languages 
and Literatures were followed. Many concessions, however, were 
made to the wishes of the contributors. 

3. The editors regret that Professors Charles F. Kent of Yale 
University and James F. McCurdy of the University of Toronto 
were unable to send their contributions on account of illness. 
They also regret that the contribution of Professor James Henry 
Breasted of The University of Chicago, on “ἃ New Temple and 
Town of Ikhnaton in Nubia,” could not be included in these vol- 
umes on account of a delay in proofs due to illness. Professor 
Breasted’s contribution will be published in the January or April 
number of the American Journal of Semitic Languages and 
Literatures. 

4. The editors are gratified to present these volumes on the 
second anniversary of the death of Wi~uiam Rainey Harper. 


CONTRIBUTORS 


William R. Arnold 
George A. Barton 

Julius A. Bewer 

Charles Augustus Briggs 
Francis Brown 

Albert T. Clay 

John D. Davis 

Charles Prospero Fagnani 
Richard J. H. Gottheil 
Paul Haupt 

Morris Jastrow 
Christopher Johnston 
Duncan B. Macdonald 
Max L. Margolis 
Hinckley Gilbert Mitchell 
George Foot Moore 
Lewis Bayles Paton 
Frank Chamberlin Porter 
Tra Maurice Price 

J. Dyneley Prince 
Nathaniel Schmidt 
Henry Preserved Smith 
John M. P. Smith 
Charles Cutler Torrey 
Crawford Howell Toy 
William Hayes Ward 


Andover Theological Seminary 
Bryn Mawr College 

Union Theological Seminary 
Union Theological Seminary 
Union Theological Seminary 
University of Pennsylvania 
Princeton Theological Seminary 
Union Theological Seminary 
Columbia University 

Johns Hopkins University 
University of Pennsylvania 
Johns Hopkins University 
Hartford Theological Seminary 
Cincinnati 

Boston University 

Harvard University 

Hartford Theological Seminary 
Yale University 

The University of Chicago 
Columbia University 

Cornell University 

Meadville Theological School 
The University of Chicago 
Yale University 

Harvard University 

The Independent 


CONTENTS OF VOLUME ONE 


FRONTISPIECE 
PHOTOGRAVURE OF δ μὰν Rainey HARPER 


INTRODUCTION . : : : : : : ὃ i 3 
Francis Brown 


On Some CoNncEPTIONS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT 
PSALTER 


Crawrorp Howe. Toy 


THEOPHOROUS PROPER NAMES IN THE OLD TESTAMENT 


Henry PRESERVED SMITH 


An ANALYSIS oF IsaraH 40-62 . ; ν : ; 


CuHarites Auacustus Briaas 


THE OMISSION OF THE INTERROGATIVE PARTICLE 


HincKiey GitBert MItrcHELL 


CHARACTER OF THE ANONYMOUS GREEK VERSION OF 
HABAKKUK, CHAPTER 3 


Max L. Maraotis 


Notes ON THE NAME ΓΙ ΓΙ," 


Grorce Foot Moore 


THE RHYTHMS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS 
Wixtuiam R. Arnoip 


Tur PRE-EXISTENCE OF THE SOUL IN THE ΒΟΟΚ OF 
WISDOM AND IN THE RABBINICAL WRITINGS 


FRANK CHAMBERLIN PORTER 
ix 


PAGES 


Xi—xXxxiV 


1-34 


35-64 


65-112 


113-130 


131-142 


143-164 


165-204 


205-270 


x CoNTENTS OF VOLUME ONE 


PERSIAN WorbDS AND THE DATE oF OLp TESTAMENT 
DocUMENTS 
Joun D. Davis 


ARAMAIC INDORSEMENTS ON THE DOCUMENTS OF THE 
Murast Sons 


Axvsert T. Cray 


A Hymn To THE Goppgess Bau (CT, XV, 22) . 


J. DynevLrey PRINCE 


Tue ASssyRIAN Worp NUBATTU . ᾿ Ἵ : : 


CHRISTOPHER JOHNSTON 


A MS or Ast Hirran’s COLLECTION OF ANECDOTES 
aBouT Αβῦ Nuwds . 


Dunoan B. MacponaLp 


THE CYLINDER AND CONE SEALS IN THE MUSEUM OF 
THE HERMITAGE, ST. PETERSBURG 


Witiram Hayes Warp 


SomE CASSITE AND OTHER CYLINDER SEALS 
Ira Maurice Price 


PAGES 


271-284 


285-322 


323-338 


339-350 


351-358 


359-380 


381-400 


INTRODUCTION 


FRANCIS BROWN 


ott ae = 

᾿ in, um, ὁ Ne a 

P μ 7 raed, Capen μοι greek. 

εὐ SE SA Ae 16, 
ΓΕ e741 ut MS oe S| | 5:5 

ah: a κά 2p aw A te tin eae. 2) ΤᾺ 


i! ᾿ σας, eu oe ee. LOU Ia: ‘ 


μ᾿ ᾿ ; rads Teg πδοδηρο, a aa 

ibaa VY a ΕἸΣ" seit’ Pe ἌΣ εν Rous 
ΡΥ Tees τ lay aaa he’, 
᾿ αἱ εὐνὴν pant ro 
os « i ke χὐ Masraiotin δ ΑΝ + 


os γά 
é Zz 
Ὁ 
' 
~ 
5 
Ἢ a 
— 
Fa "4 


INTRODUCTION 
Francis Brown 


This collection of papers is an unusual tribute to a strong and 
unique personality. It is offered by a fellowship of scholars most 
of whom were the personal friends of President Harper, and many of 
whom had come under the almost magical influence of his teach- 
ing. All are impelled by the desire to honor a fellow-student who 
has deserved well of learning. All are saddened by the thought 
that his last contribution has been made to the Old Testament and 
Semitic studies which he loved so ardently. His public connection 
with them covered more than twenty-five years, and the circum- 
stances of it appealed to the imagination. He was the representa- 
tive, and indeed the embodiment, of these studies for a large circle 
of men and women who were introduced to them, directly and 
indirectly, through him. Some thus came to an intimate knowledge 
of them. More reached superficial, though often enthusiastic, 
acquaintance. Still others merely watched the phenomenon, with 
keen interest, from without. For all of these he held the middle 
of the field. He did nothing for display, but everything for 
efficiency, and from this point of view his life was not only an 
achievement, it was an astonishing spectacle. 

In any case, it would not be time yet to estimate justly Dr. 
Harper’s place in the department of Semitic learning, and the 
phenomenal quality in his work adds to the difficulty. The en- 
thusiasm of loyal pupils does not promote impartiality nor find it 
easy to discriminate between the man and the scholar. On the 
other hand, a purely scholarly judgment may underestimate the 
worth of a pupil’s insight, and lose the large impression in the 
criticism of details, while the very fact of wide popularity among 
the uncritical may awaken the scholar’s prejudice or suspicion. 

Under these circumstances, and with the bias of warm per- 
sonal friendship, it would be impossible for the present writer, 
even if he were otherwise competent to do so, to attempt a 


xili 


xiv INTRODUCTION 


thoroughly critical estimate of Dr. Harper’s work in the Semitic 
languages, and particularly in biblical scholarship. Nothing 
more is possible than a rapid review of that work in a spirit of 
sincere appreciation, which it will be the endeavor not to devitalize 
and invalidate by undiscriminating eulogy. Flattery is the 
subtlest form of contempt for the dead as for the living, and Dr. 
Harper’s reputation needs only the respect of perfect truthfulness 
to insure real fame. 

Semitic studies in this country have had an interesting history.’ 
They began with the first generation of settlers in New England. 
The early presidents of Harvard were orientalists of repute. 
Hebrew was long a required study, because education was essen- 
tially religious, and because the larger part of the Bible was in 
Hebrew. Like studies were fostered at Yale. Hebrew words 
were engraved on the original seal of Dartmouth College. The 
Dutch and Scottish settlers of New York and New Jersey brought 
with them the same insistence on the language of the Old Testa- 
ment. The study was by degrees limited to students for the 
ministry, and grew somewhat perfunctory, even for them. A 
great revival of interest, both linguistic and exegetical, was led 
by Moses Stuart, a graduate of Yale, who became professor at 
Andover Theological Seminary in 1810. Hebrew had never died 
out in the Middle States, and it reached a position of importance 
at Princeton, under Professor Joseph Addison Alexander and 
his successor, Professor William Henry Green; but Stuart was a 
more brilliant pioneer. Stuart had many apt pupils—though 
none his equal as a teacher. Among the most famous was 
Edward Robinson, through whom a new center of these studies 
was established in New York. The newer western institutions 
were in large part manned by students of these eastern teachers. 
But not all. Harper was seven years old when Robinson died, 
but Harper’s Semitic genealogy did not originate in that line. His 
first impulse toward Semitic study was due to an independent 
strain of Scotch blood. It is to be traced directly back to the 

1Tts details are scattered through various books, pamphlets, and articles, but it was 
summed up, near the close of the last century, in the two papers by Professor George F. 


Moore, D.D., of Harvard, in the Zeitschrift fir alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, 1888-89 
under the title “Alttestamentliche Studien in Amerika.” 


FRANCIS BROWN XV 


zeal for knowledge and the demand for a learned ministry on the 
part of a people whose love for theology is democratic enough to 
demand thorough equipment on the part of its religious leaders. 
If Muskingum College, at New Concord, Ohio—an institution of 
whose existence many thousands of persons have learned since 
Dr. Harper’s death, from the simple fact that he studied there— 
had not been founded by Scotchmen, chiefly for the training of 
ministers, and had not required Hebrew as a part of its course, it 
is not probable that Stuart and Robinson or their followers would 
have taken its place, and led Harper into Semitic paths. His 
precocity was, of course, an element in the case. To have learned 
enough Hebrew at fourteen to pronounce an oration—of what- 
ever quality—in that language, is to have put behind one its 
superficial difficulties at an age that gives a long start over most 
students of it.’ 

His teacher at Muskingum was Reverend David Paul, at that 
time president of the college. The studies of his early boyhood stim- 
ulated his taste for language as such, and this led him, at seven- 
teen, to Yale, and a cosmopolitan atmosphere of learning. His 
life at Yale took the place, for him, of study at a foreign univer- 
sity. Professor William D. Whitney taught him Sanskrit, and 
sound philological method, and through Professor George E. Day 
he came into the line of New England Hebraists who looked 
back to Moses Stuart as their head. Professor Whitney, also, saw 
the opportunity for Semitic scholarship and influenced him that 
way, although his thesis for the degree of doctor of philosophy 
was in the Sanskrit field. This was in 1875, when he was nine- 
teen years of age. 

Then followed three and a half years of school administration 
and teaching, mainly classical; and in January, 1879, he began 
to teach Hebrew in the Baptist Union Theological Seminary at 
Morgan Park, a suburb of Chicago. In less than two years his 
eagerness and his success as a Hebrew teacher were making him 
a national figure. His summer schools and correspondence school, 
his textbooks and his periodicals, were all so many ways of bring- 


2If we smile at the ‘“‘ Hebrew oration,’ we may remember that this was a usage at the 
Harvard commencement till 1817— hardly more than fifty years earlier, 


ΧΥΪ INTRODUCTION 


ing his teaching power to bear on increasing classes of students. 
Still wider scope was given to his activities by his call to Yale as 
professor of Semitic languages in 1886, and his incumbency of 
the Woolsey professorship of biblical literature in the same uni- 
versity, in 1889. In 1891 he became president of the new 
University of Chicago, and although this exacting position less- 
ened the time he could give to Semitic and biblical studies, it 
greatly increased his general influence even in these particular 
fields. 

Dr. Harper gained a useful degree of acquaintance with other 
Semitic languages, and gave instruction in several of them at 
different times. But it is only in the department of Hebrew and 
the Old Testament that the published materials permit any 
attempt to estimate his scholarly attainments. 

It has already appeared that Dr. Harper’s first taste of Hebrew 
came through a branch of Scotch Presbyterianism, and that the 
influences set at work by Moses Stuart reached him only in his 
second stage. All the more attractive is the parallel between 
these two great teachers of Hebrew and of the Old Testament. 
Both were enthusiastic students, of acquisitive powers far above 
the common. Both were drawn to the Semitic field as by mag- 
netic power. Its importance, current neglect of it, its fresh possi- 
bilities, largely unknown, enticed and held them. Both were 
forced by circumstances to depend much on private study, and 
both diligently used the books of others. Both were effective 
teachers, and communicated their ardor for study to many pupils. 
Both thus became the heads of important revival movements in 
Old Testament science. Both found it necessary to publish text- 
books to meet the demand which their own work had created. 
There were, no doubt, striking differences between them—and not 
in personal quality alone. Harper was able to create machinery 
which enlarged his direct influence to an extent quite unthinkable 
in the staid conditions of Andover Hill. His summer schools and 
correspondence school multiplied his pupils many fold, and his 
instinctive appeal to the average man expanded the constituency 
of these schools quite beyond the limits of a single profession. 
In the introductory editorial to the first number of Hebraica 


FRANCIS Brown ΧΥΙΪ 


(March, 1884), he wrote: ‘Within three years there has been 
organized and carried into successful operation a school for the 
study of Hebrew by correspondence. This school, at this writing, 
includes over six hundred clergymen and students. The mem- 
bers of the school are of every evangelical denomination. They 
reside in almost every state in the Union, in Canada, in England, 
in Scotland, in Ireland, in Turkey, in China, in Japan, in India.” 
Stuart had no such effect as this! On the other hand, Harper 
found much more material ready to his hand, and he enjoyed 
much greater fellowship and sympathy. The movement begun 
by Stuart, and carried on by his pupils and theirs, had been rein- 
forced, over and over again, by European learning, and was gain- 
ing vigor and effectiveness. Harper had this at his disposal, and 
he employed it from fresh centers, with a strong increment from 
his own incisive energy, in spreading knowledge more widely 
among the people. This applies to his linguistic work, and still 
more to his work in the study of the Old Testament as literature. 
Stuart had learned from Gesenius and Seiler the modern method 
of interpretation by grammar and lexicon, and this method, largely | 
through Stuart, had become thoroughly acclimatized in this coun- 
try. To Harper it came by inheritance, rather than by discovery. 
His two years at Yale determined this. If Stuart’s American 
world was smaller, the effect of his teaching, as far as it reached, 
was intense and productive, and Yale was well within his world. 
Both had pupils who showed their appreciation of their masters 
by carrying on advanced studies elsewhere. Here, again, Stuart’s 
men prepared the way for the later generation. It was a more 
uncommon and venturesome thing for Edward Robinson to study 
in Gottingen, Halle, and Berlin, than any man can appreciate who 
has gone to Germany as a student since Harper began to teach. 
The parallel might run out into unprofitable comparisons, but it is 
obvious enough on the surface to give point and interest to close 
inquiry. 

To Professor Harper’s Hebrew scholarship it was both an 
advantage and a serious disadvantage that his teaching of it was 
- so successful and so absorbing. We hear that to teach a subject 
is the best way to learn it, but this aphorism is obviously of lim- 


xvill INTRODUCTION 


ited application. Elementary teaching may secure a firm grasp 
of the elements, but it may actually preclude, by its demands 
on time and strength, large strides in the higher ranges of a great 
subject. Those who teach the multiplication table every day, 
and twice a day, do not fit themselves thereby to lecture on 
quaternions. 

The ideal authority in any field of scholarship is a man who 
has mastered his subject in its outlines and its details, who has 
explored its depths and climbed to its heights, who is full of 
knowledge, common and recondite both, and whose mind is so 
adjusted to the possibilities of his field that his judgment decides 
questions that arise in it by swift instinct, incommunicable but 
unerring. Men resort to him as to a storehouse of knowledge, and 
accept his statement of the facts in place of observing them for 
themselves; men depend upon his judgment of matters related to 
his specialty with confidence, and build on his opinions great 
fabrics of conclusion. Doubtless scholars often make mistakes 
and err in judgment, but this proves no more than that they only 
approach the ideal and do not in fact reach it. And even the 
approach to it is by no royal road. The habitual quiet of the 
study, freedom from distractions, the testings of the laboratory, 
deliberation in proving conclusions, the slow seasoning of opinions, 
lack of haste in publishing them, the quickening of the sensitive 
faculties of the mind which are dulled if they are overtaxed or 
hurried, all the ripening processes which must supplement the 
acquisitive powers, to bring the fruits of knowledge to a sound 
maturity —these things are essential to the scholar, and possible 
in satisfying degree only for those who add to a love of knowledge, 
and a deep respect for it—a sense of the worth of absolute devo- 
tion to even a small segment of it—the freedom from preoccupa- 
tion and from distraction about many things which gives devotion 
to knowledge its opportunity. 

In thus describing the exacting life of pure scholarship, it is 
evident that one leaves out important elements of the exacting 
life of President Harper, and perhaps includes some things for 
which that life had little room. 


Could a man, occupied as he was occupied, with the many 


ἘΒΑΝΟΙΒ Brown xix 


plans which sprang from his fertile brain demanding administra- 
tive and executive care—in spite of his great facility in using 
the services of others—be an absolute devotee of pure scholar- 
ship? There is no doubt that pure scholarship was an object of 
' his strong desire—appealing to him with the attractive power of 
a luxury almost within reach. But the man has been rare indeed, 
who was capable at once of carrying on such large and varied 
affairs as fell to Dr. Harper’s lot by the very necessity of his 
gifts, as well as of his circumstances—his gifts shaping his cir- 
cumstances to a great degree—and at the same time of rising to 
the very highest heights of technical scholarship. 

Far from belittling his scholarly attainments, these conditions 
make it possible for us to appreciate them at their real value. It 
is remarkable that, under the conditions of his life, he was able 
to command as much of Semitic knowledge as he did, and to 
express such well-considered opinions on Semitic matters. The 
scholarship of a man like this has peculiar value because it carries 
so far. It does not become trivial by the fact that there may 
be other scholarship more prodigious. Not many men know 
Hebrew as well as Dr. Harper knewit. And what man has made 
his knowledge more thoroughly effective? 

The chief feature of Dr. Harper’s intellectual life has been 
barely hinted at thus far. Here was a highly original man, at 
the post of a scholar, with a large share of a scholar’s attainments, 
whose originality was directed to practical ends. These were, of 
course, in no sense material ends. They were practical ways of 
bringing scholarship to bear effectively on the mental life of the 
largest numbers. For this he was equipped in a degree quite 
exceptional. His great faculty of administering affairs appeared 
in the constitution of his Summer and Correspondence Schools, 
and—less visible to the multitude, but of equal efficiency —in 
the organization of the Hebrew and Semitic studies at Morgan 
Park, at Yale, and at the University of Chicago. 

No qualification is needed in speaking of Dr. Harper as a 
teacher. He had a genius for communicating knowledge. This 
included —as it must always include—an intuitive perception of 
the mental attitude and furniture of the average pupil, and the 


xx INTRODUCTION 


gift of seeing with distinctness what he wished to teach, and of 
expressing it with precision. These qualities were heightened by 
training, and were backed by an unwearying patience, by a sturdy 
insistence on thoroughness, and by an absolute conviction of the 
worth of the study in which he and his pupils were engaged. 
Repetition did not grow tedious to him. That a student should 
master the elements of Hebrew was of more consequence to him 
than that he himself should have leisure for grammatical or 
exegetical inquiry. He gave himself ungrudgingly in his teaching 
work. ΤῸ aremarkable degree these characteristics appear in his 
lesson leaves and textbooks. His Hlements of Hebrew (1881-82), 
Hebrew Method and Manual (1883), Vocabularies (1881-82), 
and Syntax (1888) have been used in more than one hundred and 
fifty institutions, distributed in thirty-two states and territories 
of this republic as well as several foreign countries. In this way 
his influence on the teaching of Hebrew has been extraordinary. 

The processes of instruction are displayed in these, and not the 
mere facts of knowledge. Therefore they will always have value 
for educators quite distinct from their value to research students. 
It is probable that groups of persons so many and so large have 
never been so well taught as his Hebrew classes were, in the sense 
of acquiring exactly what he aimed to impart to them. They 
gained the ability to read Hebrew with some facility, and, what 
is more, with some pleasure. The world of the Old Testament 
took on new life for them. Some of them, after further training, 
became Old Testament experts, many of them became intelligent 
and sympathetic students of the Old Testament, to whom the lan- 
guage had ceased to be a barrier or a bugbear, and had become a 
means of better understanding and of finer appreciation. 

It is difficult to overestimate such a service as this. Each man 
who is affected by it is enriched and enlarged. It was always 
present to Dr. Harper’s mind that in a subject closely related to 
religion, like the language of the Old Testament, a larger intelli- 
gence means new light on religious facts and new agencies for 
religious influence. But this may, for the moment, be left at one 
side. From the point of view of special scholarship the wide- 
spread results of such teaching raise the general level. They 


FRANcIs Brown χχὶ 


τ make special studies easier. They provide conditions from which 
the accomplished scholar more easily springs. They supply him 
with a responsive constituency. One in twenty of the eager 
pupils may grow qualified to teach others what he has learned, 
and so the constituency increases. One in a hundred—or five 
hundred—may be led to pursue higher studies with the best 
masters, and so, in time, to become himself a master with author- 
ity, and so the science advances. It is a great and good achieve- 
ment to have made Hebrew and the Old Testament, to say 
nothing of the kindred languages and their literatures, access- 
ible and delightful to a large company of men and women—good 
for them and a great thing for the future of Hebrew studies and 
the scientific study of the Old Testament. 

Some dangers are involved. There is the danger, for the 
teacher, of seeming to countenance low and imperfect standards 
of scholarship, and, for the pupil, the danger of superficial knowl- 
edge and superficial judgment, and the danger of thinking that 
if so much can be gained so early, even mastery itself cannot 
require much more. But these dangers are inherent in popular 
education, and are not half so bad as the dangers of ignorance. 
The student who knows a little may sometimes be opinionated 
and impertinent, but on the whole the man who knows nothing is 
a greater menace. The beginner may not understand how much 
is beyond him, but he is likely to have a juster idea of it than one 
who has never begun. And all fresh knowledge gives a freer 
atmosphere, and tends toward the hospitable mind. Whatever 
drawbacks attended Dr. Harper’s success were far more than out- 
weighed by its permanent value in the general life of the intellect. 

Opinions will differ as to the relative importance of different 
elements in his method of teaching. Dr. Harper himself ascribed 
the chief value to its ‘‘inductive” feature, by which the pupil is 
introduced to the facts of language, and led to build up the rules 
of linguistic usage for himself on the basis of these facts. As far 
as this means concrete dealing with the actual material at an early 
stage of study, and is opposed to abstract formula, it is no doubt 
fundamental. Dr. Harper’s way of applying his principle was 
certainly, in his hands, highly effective. It might be called the 


xxii INTRODUCTION 


method of giving illustrations before stating rules. When com- 
bined with the method of applying the rules widely after they have 
been stated, it is evidently fruitful. It is less adapted to a book 
of reference than to an elementary textbook. It is perhaps more 
appropriate to the Introductory Hebrew Method and Manual 
than to the Elements of Hebrew, especially since the latter be- 
came, in a sense, a book of reference for those using the former. 
Perhaps the fact that the Elements was published first (in 1881; 
the Manual in 1883) may have something to do with the main- 
tenance of this order of the material in the reference volume. 
However this may be, and while it would be foolish to undervalue 
a system which has yielded such results in practice, there can be 
little doubt that Dr. Harper never did justice in his public utter- 
ances—and probably he never did in his own mind—to the part 
played by his unusual powers of selection and clear statement. 
From the mass of linguistic facts he picked out the essential — 
i. e., the things essential for a beginner to know—and left the 
rest unnoticed. The embarrassment of larger knowledge, the 
burdening sense of exceptions and needed qualifications, which 
oppresses many gifted teachers and enfeebles their teaching, is 
not an embarrassment or a burden in these books. He has 
selected from his available store that which is immediately useful, 
and that alone. And having selected it, he puts it before his 
pupils with brevity and in lucid terms. It is impossible to mis- 
understand what he says, or be confused by it. Without at all 
belittling the “inductive” method, it is pretty certain that if the 
choice were forced upon us between having first the facts and 
then muddled explanations of them, or first transparent state- 
ments and then the illustrative facts, the latter would gain a 
unanimous vote. So that we must recognize once more the pre- 
eminent gifts of the man as contributing to the success of his 
method. 

His principle of introducing, at an early stage, some elements 
of comparative Semitic grammar is worthy of all praise. He 
could not claim, in 1881, to be a great Semitic philologist. But 
his mind grasped the relations of things, and he knew, with the 
teacher’s insight, how a bit of philological history lights up the 


FrANcIs Brown Xxili 


gray waste of linguistic desert in which beginners in Hebrew 
sometimes seem to themselves to be wandering. Perhaps if his 
own studies in this history had been larger, he would have been 
less able to use what he had for the benefit of his pupils. The 
gift of employing, without loss, all that he had was no small factor 
in his success. 3 

His Hebrew Vocabularies (1881-82), also, were strongly advo- 
cated by him, and diligently employed. The plan of grouping 
words by the frequency of their use is the salient point in his 
system here, and is certainly correct. His own insistence on the 
committing to memory of these lists of words carried many students 
through the drudgery of it. But the general demand for this 
book has not approached that for his other textbooks, and many 
teachers have found that a less mechanical, more gradual, not to 
say insinuating, demand upon the student’s memory is workable, 
and is more natural and even more truly “inductive.” 

The soil was to some extent prepared for such a crop of interest 
in Hebrew studies. The great impulse given to them by Stuart, 
Robinson, Alexander, and the rest had not wholly lost its headway 
among the ministry. The fresh energy devoted to them in at least 
one theological seminary of the eastern states, under the vigorous 
leadership of a strong teacher of unusual gifts, trained by long 
study abroad, was making itself felt before Harper went to Mor- 
gan Park. Modern principles of biblical study were announced 
in the same quarter. The trial and quasi-condemnation of a bril- 
liant and competent teacher in Scotland, William Robertson Smith, 
with its accompanying spread of his opinions in attractive form, 
drew much attention in this country, and turned the thoughts of 
many into channels to which they had been strangers. During 
the greater part of Dr. Harper’s public service, and side by side 
with it, movements that in some cases amounted to convulsions 
were going on in several of the great ecclesiastical bodies over 
the same biblical questions. There was a general breaking-up of 
the old ground and a fertilizing of it with new ideas. Others, 
also, were cultivating it in ways different from his. Large enter- 
prises were undertaken in behalf of Old Testament science, and 
for the better knowledge of the ancient Semitic world. Dr. Harper 


ΧΧΙΥ INTRODUCTION 


was thus not summoned to clear and till a virgin field, nor was he 
an isolated husbandman. But, when all is said, it was he who saw 
how large the opportunity was, who perceived the ranges along 
which it especially lay, who was qualified in a peculiar degree to 
take it, and who devoted himself without reserve, and at great 
personal cost, to grasping and improving it to the utmost limits 
of his power. His service to Semitic studies was great in fostering 
other branches of them than those to which he more especially 
gave himself. Hebrew and the Old Testament belonged in a 
peculiar sense to him, yet he applied himself in private study, 
and with the eager diligence that characterized him in all things, 
to Arabic and to Assyrian, and he had classes in these languages 
at times. He learned something of other Semitic languages. But 
in none of them did he feel at home to the degree that he did in 
Hebrew, and in the Old Testament books, where teaching and 
public lecturing for a long series of years gave him easy familiarity 
with what he taught. All the more generously did he open the 
way for others to specialize in the various divisions of the great 
field. Qualified men were encouraged to devote themselves to 
these subjects, and opportunities opened to teach them in his 
various schools. In every case, whether in Hebrew or any other 
branch, Dr. Harper gave promising scholars the chance to show 
the best that was in them. The list is a considerable one—at 
least forty or fifty names—of those who came under his influence 
for a longer or shorter time, and afterward found positions of 
usefulness as Semitic and biblical teachers. 

His great desire was to see departments of Semitic languages 
spring up in all colleges and universities. This desire was realized 
to some extent, if not in its full measure. The attempt has been 
made in many places. In some it has succeeded. In some the 
only form of it has been as an attachment to a biblical chair. 
In few has there been any generous equipment for such a depart- 
ment, and the attempt to provide it has in some instances been 
withdrawn altogether, and that in quarters where it would least 
have been expected. On the whole, however, his contagious 
enthusiasm bore larger fruit in this direction than would have 
come in many years by the combined efforts of less persistent and 


FRANCIS BRowN XXV 


effective men. The idea has grown familiar, the need has been 
presented. Its results thus far commend it, and the preceding 
era of indifference to Semitic and even to biblical knowledge in 
courses of general education has passed, we may hope forever. 
The elective system, which, whatever its defects and drawbacks, 
has enabled higher institutions to offer hospitality to all branches 
of human knowledge, will not tolerate, in the long run, a neglect 
of subjects of such human dignity and such practical significance 
as these, and, as endowments increase, ampler provision will be 
made for these studies which Dr. Harper so deeply felt to be a 
general concern of men. 

The breadth and depth of his scholarly interests are shown in 
two fields of which the past century has taught us the importance 
—that of periodical literature, and that of discovery by explora- 
tion and excavation. 

Of his enterprise in the latter field, and its actual yield to Old 
Testament study, it is too early to say much. Nor is it important 
to do so, for the present purpose. Dr. Harper did not himself 
engage in exploration. The expedition to Bismya, under the 
auspices of the University of Chicago, and Professor Breasted’s 
original work in Egypt and Egyptian sources, were matters in 
which he took the liveliest interest, and they attested his restless 
energy in pushing out many lines of search and research for con- 
tributions to the subjects which lay near his heart. 

In the periodicals, however, he was personally and closely 
involved from first to last. The periodicals were of two distinct 
kinds; some had a popular and some a scientific purpose. The 
Hebrew Student (1882) was the first of them all, and represented 
both types, but the differentiation began with Hebraica (1884) 
—merged later (1895) in the American Journal of Semitic 
Languages and Literatures—and the Old Testament Student 
(1883), with its offspring by direct descent, the Old and New 
Testament Student (1888) and the Biblical World (1893). The 
American Journal of Theology (1897) attests his general theo- 
logical sympathies, but does not, on the whole, belong in this paper. 

As to the quality of these periodicals, it is quite within limits 
to say for the popular division that it has fully met its purpose, 


χχυὶ INTRODUCTION 


and has undoubtedly opened the way in many instances to some- 
thing beyond itself. It is no small triumph that the more technical 
journal has been sustained at all, as it could not have been without 
the self-sacrifice of the editor in its earlier history, and the univer- 
sity backing of the more recent years. There has been a distinct 
improvement in scholarly value. For some time the available 
material was quite limited; the number of competent workers was 
small, and their absorption in pressing tasks was great. Articles 
of uniform excellence could not be looked for. The average was 
not always high. But, increasingly, the results of serious and 
careful work have gone into the journal, contributions have been 
received from scholars of note, and it has taken its place as a useful 
repository of the products of original research. 

Dr. Harper had, in a marked degree, the editorial instinct. He 
felt in advance the mind of his public. Their point of view was 
present to his thought, without effort on his part. He saw with 
their eyes, and heard with their ears. Their mental equipment, 
their aptitudes and their prejudices he took into the account almost 
unconsciously. He estimated the articles he published according 
to their fitness for the students and thoughtful people who would 
read them, more than by any abstract standard. He was himself 
appreciative of the best, and his own robust judgment was prepared 
to decide questions of criticism and interpretation on their merits, 
but he had a warm and considerate sympathy for those who needed 
to be dealt with tenderly. He did not aim to dazzle or to startle: 
he was anxious not to repel. His earnest purpose, as an editor, 
was to reach, and hold, and instruct. Others sometimes thought 
him over-cautious, but he probably knew his constituency better 
than any one else did, and, on the whole, in view of the progress 
of the last twenty-five years, his editorial sensitiveness may be 
fairly said to have justified itself. 

His own contributions to these periodicals have been as numer- 
ous as one had any right to expect. Here, more clearly than any- 
where else, we can see how his interests as a scholar were widening ; 
keeping pace, one may say, with a growing conception of the 
needs and capacities of his public. The early editorial notes, not 
merely in the Hebrew Student and the Old Testament Student 


FRANCIS BRowN XXVli 


but in Hebraica as well, are quite naive in their appeal to the 
most elementary stages of knowledge. These journals were, at 
the first, the mere organs of a scheme of elementary teaching of 
Hebrew. It is evident that theological students, and not well- 
trained ones, were the object of the editor’s chief thought. But 
in Hebraica, after 1886, these editorial notes disappear. His 
call to Yale, in that year, put broader responsibilities upon him, 
and he began to consider, more habitually, the range of Semitic 
languages and their relation to each other as of consequence 
apart from professional training. There is an advance from the 
note on ‘‘Hebrew in Colleges” (Hebraica, Vol. II, p. 250), and 
that on “A Little Knowledge of Hebrew” (Hebraica, Vol. III, 
p. 50), to the article (given first as a brief address in Philadelphia) 
on ‘Semitic Study in the University” (Hebraica, Vol. V [1883], 
pp. 83f.). It was in 1888 that his Hebrew Syntax appeared, 
and it showed good philological method, but to his journals he 
made no important contributions in technical philology. His chief 
articles were in the realm of the literary and historical study of 
the Bible—mainly the Old Testament. In the popular journals 
these took the form of “inductive” studies; and here, too, while the 
pedagogical interest continues to the end, there is great develop- 
ment in the thoroughness with which problems are laid hold of, 
and the insistence with which they are presented. In the later 
years there were three such serial treatments of Old Testament 
subjects in the Biblical World: “Constructive Studies in the 
Priestly Element in the Old Testament” (January to December, 
1901), ‘Constructive Studies in the Literature of Worship in the 
Old Testament” (February to August, 1902), and “Constructive 
Studies in the Prophetic Element in the Old Testament” (January, 
1904, to January, 1905). Two of these—the Studies in the Priestly 
Element (3d ed., 1905) and the Prophetic Element (1905)— have 
been published separately. With these, as of the same general 
stamp, although adapted to students of a less special type, and with 
more stress on practical religious values, may be named such recent 
correspondence courses as those on “The Work of the Old Testa- 
ment Priests’ (1900), “The Work of the Old Testament Sages” 
(1904), and ‘“‘The Foreshadowings of the Christ” (1904). 


XXViii INTRODUCTION 


His most notable contribution to Hebraica was the series of 
articles on “The Pentateuchal Question,” extending from October, 
1888, to July, 1890. These showed abundant reading and famil- 
iarity with the main modern positions. They were prepared to 
represent the school of historical criticism in a discussion in which 
Professor William Henry Green, of Princeton, took the conserva- 
tive side. This opponent was an accomplished debater, and had 
the advantage of the attacking party and of entire commitment to 
the positions he himself held. Dr. Harper, on the other hand, 
avowedly refrained from committing himself to the details of the 
views he set forth, and thereby lost a part of the strength of a 
champion. Dr. Green’s articles were the more numerous, run- 
ning on until the number for April—July, 1892. The result was 
perhaps rather confusing than otherwise to serious students of 
biblical problems; and while the double series bore witness to 
Dr. Harper’s fairmindedness and genial recognition of opposing 
schools of thought, it is doubtful whether his maturer judgment 
would have favored a repetition of this procedure in like conditions. 

Dr. Harper’s reputation as a productive technical scholar must 
rest, in the main, on his Amos and Hosea (1905) in the Inter- 
national Critical Commentary. Preliminary studies appeared 
from time to time—specifically the Structure of the Text of the 
Book of Amos (1904) and the Structure of the Text of the Book of 
Hosea (1905); with earlier publications in the American Journal 
of Semitic Languages and Literatures, 1900 and 1904; and the 
translation of Hosea in the Biblical World (January, 1905). But 
he did not fairly present himself to the world as a pure scholar 
among scholars until the appearance of the Commentary itself, a 
year before his death. This book is so different from anything 
else he published that it must be considered quite by itself. His 
other books represented a selection from abundant materials of 
that which is needed by a class. Here we have a full—almost 
unrestricted—exhibition of all the matters connected with the 
subject. The attitude toward modern criticism elsewhere in his 
writing is often cautious, apologetic, sometimes non-committal, 
sometimes hypothetical, governed by consideration for an opposite 
point of view, or by a delicate pedagogical method. Here, the 


FRANCIS Brown ΧΧΙΧ 


acceptance of the critical mode of approach and of reasoning is 
unqualified. The interest in the beginner’s needs is not control- 
ling. New emphasis appears, e. g., on textual change and on poetic 
form. All the features required by an elaborate, modern critical 
commentary are here—breadth of plan, patient handling of 
detail, the determination of fact by evidence, constant citation of 
authorities, careful analysis, registration of the opinions of others, 
introductions, tables of dates, lists of abbreviations, indices. In 
this book Dr. Harper took his stand as a serious contributor to 
the work of Old Testament interpretation, and claimed a respect- 
ful hearing from the guild of fellow-workers. Only those who 
are painfully aware how small the guild of productive workers in 
this field actually is, and how exacting the terms of admission by 
their own nature have to be, can quite understand the sorrow with 
which their welcome to this comrade, hardly spoken, was turned 
to a farewell. It would be impossible, in the present article, to 
offer a minute review of the volume. A few remarks of a some- 
what general nature must suffice. 

Every student must be struck with the aim at completeness. 
The seventy pages of the Introduction which are devoted to “Pre- 
prophetism” give a sketch of Israelitish literature and thought 
till Amos, with especial discussion of the prophetic phenomena 
in the early generations. The author’s critical freedom—used 
always with sobriety —finds the clearest expression here. 

We have in these sections more than the expositor of two 
books. We have the historian of thought and life in Israel, who 
has looked steadily, with his own eyes, at the panorama of events, 
who has caught the true perspective, who sees the past as a living 
spectacle, full of real men and women with perplexed minds and 
troubled hearts; we have the student of religion and theology, who 
has the dominant interest of life always before him. We are 
aware of a shrewd judgment of individual character and action. 
We are in the company of a practiced critic, now discussing 
Moses and his influence with the respect due to one of the great 
men of the world, now analyzing the Hexateuch, now comparing 
and weighing the legal documents which grew into the body of 
Hebrew law. The introduction, designed to give background and 


ΧΧΧ INTRODUCTION 


setting for the prophets, does this and more than this. It reveals 
the breadth and the conscientious thoroughness of the author, and 
enables us to take his measure with added confidence. The treat- 
ment of the prophetic guilds, and of the essential difference between 
the popular and the exceptional prophet deserves especial note. 

The contrast is luminously drawn between the conflict of 
Elijah, Elisha, and Jehu against the Baal of Phoenicia, and the 
conflict of Hosea with the local Baalim of Canaan, which degraded 
the worship of Yahweh, but were not regarded as a substitute for 
Yahweh. It is perhaps a little confusing to find the relationship 
between these two conflicts dwelt onin another place ( pp. Ixxxviiiff.), 
but their essential distinctness is the more important proposition. 
Other divisions of the Introduction follow usual lines in the main. 

The differences between Amos and Hosea—-that marvelous illus- 
tration of a common faith and common purpose in men of radi- 
cally divergent types—are brought out clearly and skilfully. No 
one has seen more plainly that Amos’ work had definite marks of 
an ethical revival, and the exaggerations of those who deny all 
moral quality to the earlier conceptions of Yahweh are rejected. 
By these and kindred studies the way is prepared for the adequate 
statement, still awaited, of the precise ethical differentiation of the 
Yahweh of Amos from the cruder notions held by his predecessors 
in the same worship, as well as from the beliefs of other peoples, 
such as the Babylonians, among whom the gods were regarded as 
guardians of their people’s moral life. One is inclined to think, 
however, that Harper minimizes Amos’ aversion to sacrifice 
(p. exix), for surely that for which Amos has only words of con- 
demnation cannot have had any importance to him in the sense 
of pleasing Yahweh or tending to secure his favor. 

The interpretation of Hosea recognizes secondary elements in 
chap. 2, but proceeds on the view—antecedently probable, and 
made more so by the array of difficulties attending the opposite 
opinion—that chap. 3 is genuine in the main. It is a true exe- 
getical insight which makes the call of Hosea to prophetic service 
a progressive call, more absorbing and revolutionary as his 
experience advanced, and gaining its tender and awful significance 
by the wreck of his own life and the persistence of his own love. 


Francis Brown χχχὶ 


The hypothesis that Hosea was a priest is perhaps not deserving 
of the prominence given to it (pp. exlii, clvil). 

Completeness is sought, throughout the book, in the presen- 
tation of divergent opinions at every important point, and even 
at points of minor importance. There is a modern tendency—in 
reaction from scholasticism—to prefer the dashing and brilliant 
commentator who is borne on by his own force, admits no other 
interpretation than his own, seems to have reached his positions 
without aid, and pays little regard to other workers in the field. 
Of course original genius is always welcome, and the connected 
exposition of the independent exegete is attractive and stimulating. 
But there is a healthy demand, by the side of this, for the calmer 
and more judicial temper, a place for the man who tests all views 
and desires to learn from them, and who is able and willing to 
pass in critical review the most brilliant of the exegetical advocates. 
This is the demand which Harper seeks to meet in his Commentary, 
and this temper it is by all means wise for the student to emulate. 
The author was notable, beyond some who are cited as Old Testa- 
ment authorities, in recognizing how indispensable it is to know 
the literature of one’s subject, and what respect is due those who 
have made real contributions to it. He studied the books of 
other men assiduously, receptively, and profitably, aided in this 
by his power of application, of quick apprehension, of easy assim- 
ilation. Hence his opinions are not the obiter dicta of a bright 
mind, but have a scholarly backing and coherence. No doubt 
we see, in his copious citation of opinions, the diligent and 
accurate hand of Dr. J. M. P. Smith, to whom the Preface 
makes special acknowledgment, as well as his own. No doubt, 
also, all opinions, even the eccentric and the casual, should be 
before the author of such a book. Yet the question arises 
whether it is really necessary to print them all for general use. 
Those that are baseless contribute nothing to real exegesis, and 
those that have had no influence hardly belong to the history of 
exegetical thought, and are not worth their space. More serious 
is the frequent lack of definite position with reference to many of 
the views cited; an extreme case is Amos 5:26, on which he cites 
thirteen suggestions (pp. 140 f.) differing from his own inter- 


Xxxii INTRODUCTION 


pretation without making it clear by argument (even on p. 137) 
that his own is superior to the rest. One sometimes misses the 
lucid precision so characteristic of his Hebrew textbooks, a lack 
partly inherent, no doubt, in the situation of a commentator, 
threading his way through a labyrinth of possibilities, and deter- 
mining many points only by a nice balance of probabilities, but 
sometimes suggesting that even this work of scholarship was done 
under heavy pressure. In textual criticism there is little to note. 
The author generally follows good critics, but does not make much 
contribution of his own to the difficult questions. The intro- 
ductory remarks on the versions are meager. On the other hand, 
the treatment of poetic measurements, in which the author’s 
interest has long been known, is an important feature of the book, 
and not simply in the matter of metrical divisions, but also in 
strophical groupings. All in all, it is worthy of a place in every 
scholar’s library, as the amplest and best treatment of these two 
great prophets which has yet been given to the world. 

Enough has been said to show that he was not an intruder in 
the realm of the higher scholarship, but one whose place in it was 
of right. And yet, unless his circumstances had radically changed, 
we could not have looked here for the main emphasis of his life. 
If he had lived a few years longer, we should have had the other 
volumes that were promised, and they, also, would have been 
eagerly welcomed and used. But the main emphasis of his life 
could not have been shifted to technical scholarship. He would 
always have had too many other things to do to become a critic 
or an exegete, pure and simple. And it may fairly be said that 
he had the many things to do because it was, on the whole, more 
profitable for the world that his great powers should be used in 
doing them than in the more secluded work of the scholar. 

What we have to ask at the end is whether, on the whole, he 
made to Old Testament and Semitic studies the best contribution 
which, among the many, he was qualified to make. We may with- 
out hesitation answer this question in the affirmative. He aroused 
in thousands an eagerness for these studies. He introduced men 
and women to the questions with which such studies now bristle, 
and showed the lines of solution. By temperament he was fitted 


FRANCIS Brown XXxlii 


to gauge the receptiveness of average people for new ideas, and 
he did not repel those he dealt with by thrusting them forward too 
fast. He was content to be elementary for the sake of minds in 
the elementary stage, and had no contempt for them, or sense of 
condescension. He led them on to higher ranges as fast as they 
could go. He devised ingenious machinery for the promotion of 
learning. He persisted in his linguistic and educational work 
year after year. Thus he became one of the chief factors in 
that quiet revolution which, in the thirty years just ending, has 
brought the Old Testament so distinctly to the front, quickened 
interest in its languages, and equipped so many people to meet 
its problems intelligently, to the great advantage of the intellectual 
and the religious life. His sympathy with high scholarship will 
long be remembered, his scientific journals will bear witness to 
his determination to promote sound knowledge of the things he 
cared for, his Commentary will stand as an authority until the 
larger biblical science of a new generation shall displace it and 
its contemporary books. It is, no doubt, true that his greater 
influence will lie in the wider appeal; in the textbooks so care- 
fully adapted to the ends of practical instruction, in the stimulus 
and teaching skill, living on and on, and to some degree reproducing 
themselves; in the interpretation of the conclusions of the few 
original scholars for the many open-minded students; in the long 
result of all those tireless activities which were sustained by his 
belief in the general capacity of men for knowledge, and which, 
while he lived, found their constant reward in the glad response 
of those he addressed. His greater influence remains as the influence 
of the teacher, and his school numbers more pupils than he ever 
saw. It is true, also, that while his lessons are the particular 
things he taught, they are, besides these, the personal qualities of 
the man who taught them. The lasting effects of his work for 
mankind are in knowledge, but not only in knowledge; they are 
also in character. Yet, although it is right to recall these aspects 
of his service to the world, it is most appropriate to remember 
that he was himself a scholar whom scholars are bound to honor, 
a student of prodigious energy and capacity for students’ toil, 
a fellow-worker with students, who prized their fellowship. He 


XXXiV INTRODUCTION 


was too modest to anticipate such a memorial as this, but no tribute 
to his attainments can be thought of which would have gratified 
him more profoundly. It represents a consensus of the Old 
Testament and Semitic scholarship of his own time and country. 
It is not given to every man to call forth such a demonstration. 
These contributors differ widely in many opinions; more than one 
angle of vision is represented among them; but they agree in their 
estimate of the occasion; they unite in rearing a monument to one 
who loved truth above all things, and spent his life in promoting 
it. They have tried to make their memorial a worthy one by 
giving each of his best, in recognition of a noble and lamented 
comrade. 


ON SOME CONCEPTIONS OF THE OLD 
TESTAMENT PSALTER 


CRAWFORD HOWELL TOY 


a ἂν ΧΑ ἌΡΡΗΝ = ee κα μα ναι 


ΝΣ os ἌΣ [τὺ ᾿ cara! 


‘ ; vt tag πὰ ἢ τὰ } 


"od is i ᾿ 
᾿ ἐλ meee es ie | en ' 
Pal a i 
᾿ ; - ἀρ ες a Gorrie a ἀν 
4 ni 
ne τ νι 20 Peery 9 ay ae πο SAP re 
Ἢ Φ' 7 Lal * a c * 4 
j ᾿ ᾿ RES Piety al 
᾿ ᾿ ᾿ 
) ϊ ᾿ > 
we / 
« 
a ia 
᾿ ΠῚ ‘ 
i enh 
"ὧν ν" 
ἢ ae 
Ἰ ὲ ἬΝ: ἐφ 4 ἐ 5 ae 
4 x mA 
= Awe ᾿ a λ 
i ‘a x 
εἶ 
4 a »Ἅ 
- oni 4 
4 
ΕἸ 
i ᾿ ‘ 
" ἵ 
᾽ 
ν 
i , ᾿ 
" fy 
By 
a ~i 
We i 
5 ω ἂν Ms τὺ 
Ν i 20> τ 49 
= Ε 
: "is = ᾷ J ' ¥ 
A r 
΄' ᾿ a, γ 7: af 
᾿ 
4 : 
® 4 7 
. é ᾿ ' 
se γῳ ὦ 
᾿ ie J ᾿" if 
ἢ 
+ ἊΝ 4 
5 
6 7 
ὃ 


ON SOME CONCEPTIONS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT 
PSALTER 


CrawForD HoweE.tu Toy 


Though the poems of the Psalter were edited and collected 
doubtless for liturgical purposes, both poets and collectors allow 
themselves considerable freedom in choice of material. The 
majority of the hymns deal with the experiences, painful or pleas- 
ant, of the nation or of individuals. But not a few are merely 
reflective; and on some fundamental points contradictory opinions 
are expressed by different writers. This is natural in a com- 
munity as large as that which produced the psalms, and in a 
transition period when different men would be affected in differ- 
ent degrees and in different ways by the new ideas that were 
coming into vogue. Even if the psalmists were all Palestinians 
(which is probable, though not certain), there would be diver- 
sities in their points of view; and, in the absence of any history 
of the Jewish culture of the later pre-Christian centuries, the 
Psalter gives welcome hints regarding the ideas of the time. 


5.1 
Some points in the attitude of the book toward the sacrificial 
cult are worthy of notice. In general, as has often been remarked, 
little prominence is given to this cult. A few times sacrifices 
are mentioned approvingly as a part of the current worship: 
4:6 (men are urged to offer right, that is, ritually correct and 
ethically pure, sacrifices) ; 20:4 (hope that Yahweh will remember 
the king’s cereal offerings and holocausts, and grant him victory 
over his enemies) ; 26:6 (reference to the ceremonial procession 
around the altar, in connection with some thanksgiving sacrifice) ; 
27:6 (a service of praise); 51:21 (holocausts promised in joyful 
recognition of God’s goodness in building the walls of J erusalem ) ; 
54:8 (free-will or willing offering with thanks for rescue from 
enemies); 56:13 (the same); 66:13, 15 (holocausts as thank- 
offerings); 107:22 (exhortation to men to offer sacrifices of 
3 


4 ΞΟΜῈ CONCEPTIONS OF THE PSALTER 


thanksgiving for rescue from danger—possibly here thanksgiv- 
ing itself is thought of as a sacrifice’) ; 116:13 (apparently some 
sort of offering is involved, but the expression MW" O13 is 
doubtful; it hardly refers to a libation, for which the verb NWN 
‘lift’ is not appropriate; possibly to some late ceremony not men- 
tioned elsewhere, a solemn raising of a cup, in commemoration 
of deliverances at a sacrificial meal; it is, perhaps, a current 
expression = “I will make acknowledgment of rescue;” Graetz’s 
02 for OND is improbable); 116:17 (as in 107:22). Mention of 
vows occurs in 56:13; 61:6, 9; 65:2; 66:13; 76:12; 116:14, 18 
(cf. Eccl. 5:4); the expression of joy in the temple as the special 
abode of God is found in 27:4; 84; 96:8, 9 (exhortation to all 
nations to offer homage in the temple); 138:2; with special 
regard to priests, in 132:9, 16; 184; 135:1, 2; festivals, which 
were occasions of sacrifice, are spoken of with longing or enthu- 
siasm in 42:5; 81:3f.,’ and the pilgrim-psalms attest the devotion 
of distant Jews to the central spot of their cult. There is, prob- 
ably, no reference to sacrifice in 22:27, 30,’ and the text of 118:27 
(where Eng. vers. has “bind the sacrifice with cords,” etc.) is in 
disorder.’ The passages cited above show that there was a 
general hearty delight in the sacrificial ritual as the symbol 
of God’s presence and protecting care. Nothing is said of an 
expiatory efficacy in the offerings; the specific sin-offering is 
mentioned only once (40:7), and then only to be rejected;” it 
appears to be the temple around which the hopes and aspirations 
of the psalmists cluster—the temple as the locus of divine glory 
and kindness, the sacrifice being felt to be rather the traditional 
and necessary accompaniment of worship. On the other hand, 
we find expressions of indifference or antagonism to the sacrificial 
ritual. Some of the psalmists appear to live in a religious atmos- 
phere almost completely divorced from priestly ceremonies: in 
the temple what they think of is God’s graciousness (48:10), and 
the conditions of taking part in the service of Yahweh and sharing 
its blessedness are purely ethical (15; 24; 101). Besides the 
passages referred to above (107: 22; 116:17; 50:14, 23), in which 


1 And so, perhaps, 50:14, 23. 3 See note 2, p. 8. 5 See note 4, p. 12. 
2See note 1, below, p. 7. 4See note 3, p. 9. 


CRAWFORD ΗΟΨΈΙΠ, Toy 5 


thanksgiving may be regarded as itself a sacrifice, prayer is iden- 
tified in 141:2 with incense and the evening oblation. In several 
passages sacrifice is frankly dismissed as without efficacy or divine 
authority: 40:7 (God takes no delight in M21 and M2, and 
does not require mo and PINOT) ;° 50:8-15 (Israel cannot be 
charged with neglect of the ritual, but God does not desire their 
bullocks and goats, does not need animal flesh for food, rather 
asks for thankfulness and the payment of vows) ;’ 51:18 f. (God 
requires not MIT and (155), but a spirit of humble dependence 
on him); 69:31 f. (praise and thanksgiving are more acceptable 
to Yahweh than oxen and bullocks). This unfriendly attitude 
toward the sacrificial ritual seems at first sight to be identical 
with that of certain prophetic passages that run from Amos to 
Jeremiah (Am. 5:21-24; Hos. 6:6; Isa. 1:11-17; Mic. 6:6-8; 
1 Sam. 15:22; Jer. 7:21—23) and are commonly cited in illustra- 
tion of the psalmists’ point of view. And certainly, so far as 
regards the conviction of the futility of sacrifices in themselves, 
the two groups of passages are identical, and it is quite pos- 
sible that the later writers had the earlier in mind. Neverthe- 
less, there is a difference between the conceptions of the two 
groups. Down to the capture of Jerusalem by the Chaldeans 
there was no official announcement of the divine authority of the 
sacrificial ritual—it was the traditional form of worship, and had 
only the authority of custom, so that Jeremiah could say simply 
that Yahweh had not commanded it. The prophets, as moralists, 
were naturally offended by the superficial and non-moral character 
of the current worship, and in their sweeping, indiscriminating 
fashion denounced the whole procedure as an insult to the deity, 
though there is no reason to doubt that there was much simple, 
honest, though crude, devotion in the sacrificial routine of the 
people. The intellectual atmosphere of the Psalter is different. 
In the time of the prophets the popular creed was frankly and 
naively polytheistic, and a part of their indignation came from 
the foreign coloring of the popular cult; in the psalms mono- 
theism (of an impure form) is the accepted faith; the attitude 
toward worship of foreign deities is one, not of fierce anger (as 


6 See note 4, p. 12. 7See note 5, p. 14. 


0 Some CONCEPTIONS OF THE PSALTER 


in the prophetic writings), but rather of contempt, and hostility 
to the ritual is not based on the corruption in foreign cults. The 
divine authority of the ritual is not questioned; the author of 
Ps. 50 (certainly a late production) speaks of it with good-natured 
tolerance, while he professes himself indifferent to it. The tone 
of the psalm passages cited above is one rather of philosophical 
reflection than of religious indignation. The summary in Mic. 
6:6-8 is a passionate ethical protest; the argument of Ps. 50:9-15 
is an exposition of the absurdity of supposing that God needed 
animal food—perhaps a rebuke of an existing opinion, perhaps 
intended as a reductio ad absurdum, as if the writer would say: 
“the only conceivable ground for animal sacrifice is such an 
opinion, which is manifestly absurd.” The reflective tone, with 
indifference to the sacrificial ritual, these psalmists have in com- 
mon with the sages (Proverbs, Ben-Sira, Koheleth, Wisdom of 
Solomon, al.). The decadence of trust in sacrifice, while a deep 
religious spirit existed, led to the suggestion of substitutes for it. 
The prophets demanded a moral life, not as a substitute for sac- 
rifice, but as being in itself the essence of loyalty to Yahweh; 
later writers, not rejecting the ritual, recognized as its equivalents 
prayer, gratitude, penitence, almsgiving (Ben-Sira 7:9; 35[ 32]: 
Li: Dane 4:27- Tobit Ἐν ΤΠ 1228 Ὁ et Judith: 16:16) 9 in 
seeking for the causes of this movement, the limited range of 
the Jewish sacrificial system must be borne in mind. It was 
never a universal atonement—it dealt with inadvertencies and 
physical impurities; it did not touch the deeper religious expe- 
rience, and the better thinkers recognized its insufficiency as a 
means of reconciliation with God. This inadequacy was, of 
course, not peculiar to the Jewish cult—it attached to all cults, 
being inherent in the nature of sacrifice, which has its origin in 
the crude beginnings of religion. In the popular worship it was 
commercial, selfishly utilitarian, a quid pro quo to the deity, and, 
because of this element of bargaining, was repugnant to finer 
natures. This repugnance shows itself among the Greeks as well 
as among the Hebrews; in the four centuries preceding the 
beginning of our era there was a general movement, in the west- 
ern world, of protest against sacrifice and of withdrawal from 


CRAWFORD HoweELuL Toy 7 


it.” While this movement had its roots in human nature, and was 
therefore a natural Jewish growth, it was doubtless helped by the 
foreign thought with which the Jews came into contact. In 
the Psalter the conception of sacrifice is purified into an expres- 
sion of thankfulness, and its place is largely taken by worship. 
The commercial feature of worship is not lacking. Yahweh is 
praised for his intervention in national and individual affairs, or 
is besought to intervene; the author of Ps. 116 expresses the 
general attitude of most of the psalmists when he says: “I love 
Yahweh because he has heard my prayer.” This attitude, how- 
ever, does not exclude a sense of ethical dependence on God and 
the desire of ethical union with him. The moral standard of the 
psalms is admittedly good, except in the passionate demand for 
vengeance on enemies (a result of the excited social relations of 
the time). The conception of God as the ethical ideal and the 
aspiration after ethical purity for its own sake appear in certain 


of the psalms, especially in Pss. 51 and 119. 


NOTES 
Notre 1. Psaum 81:4 


“am or> fobs “aw wim. aypm. The two feasts here men- 
tioned are variously understood by recent critics. The commoner view 
is that they are New Moon and Passover; for the second some hesitate 
between Passover and Sukkot; others take the two to be New Year’s 
Day and Sukkot. This last is probably the correct view. The state- 
ment in vs. 6, “he made it a law in Joseph when he went forth over [or, 
against| the land of Egypt,” is supposed (by Graetz and others) to 
make it certain that the reference is to Passover. But Sept. reads more 
naturally “from the land of Egypt” (οἵ. Ps. 114:1), a reading that may 
inciude Sukkot as well. The psalm is not a unit: the paragraph vss. 
7-17 is an exhortation to Israel based on a review of the exodus history, 
and has no natural connection with the joyful summons in vss. 2-5. 
Vs. 6 might belong to either part: to vss. 2-5 as a chronological state- 
ment, or to vss. 7-17 as an introduction. But the peculiar phraseology, 
the use of the name Joseph (9037) instead of Jacob or Israel (as in 
the rest of the psalm), suggests that it is an editorial insertion to connect 
the two parts. The third line, AWN ΩΣ ΝΟ new, is again a gloss 
to the second line, a parallel to ‘Egypt,’ describing it as a land of a 
foreign. language (so 114:1); an allusion to a mysterious message from 


8 See note 6, p. 15, 


8 ΞΟΜῈ CONCEPTIONS OF THE PSALTER 


Yahweh, an unknown speech or lip uttering the following words, would 
be out of keeping with the conditions—the divine utterances were plain 
to Moses, as later to the prophets. The first of the two feasts is prob- 
ably the New Moon of the seventh month, which was ushered in with 
blowing of the trumpet (Lev. 23:24; Num. 29:1); so Targ.: ΝΠ 
“=n; another reference to the feast, according to Jewish ritual, 
occurs in Ps. 47:6, and others probably in 98:6; 150:3. If this be the 
first feast, the second is naturally Sukkot (so the Jewish tradition). The 
word 05D (written NOS in Prov. 7:20, the only other place in the Old 
Testament in which it occurs) is apparently Aramaic (for the Syriac 
usage see Payne-Smith); Pesh. uses it for the fifteenth day of the month 
(I Kings 12:32) and for the twenty-third day (II Chron. 7:10); that is, 
for the full-moon week. The etymology of the word is uncertain. The 
derivation from O05 ‘to cover’ (Rosh ha-Shanah, 7b, 8a) is improbable. 
The Hebrew Lexicon of Brown-Driver-Briggs compares Assyr. kuse’u 
=agu ‘cap;’ the latter word means ‘full moon’ and also the god Sin 
(Delitzsch, Muss-Arnolt), but no light is thereby thrown on the etymol- 
ogy, the origin of the sense ‘moon’ being as obscure in Assyr. as in Heb.; 
it is hardly probable that the moon should be called kuse’u as being 


ΟΣ 
the cap of a god. Compare Arab. yas ‘that which follows after, the 


3 
latter part of anything’: reid ayes ‘the latter part of the month.’ 
From this sense the meaning ‘full moon’ may well have come (cf. the 
Syr. usage), and the word may thus have been employed as a designation 
of the Assyrian moon god. Arabic forms from the stem 593 ‘to follow’ 
are employed similarly to express the latter part of anything, as, for 
example, of the month; ef. also the old Arab. name for the fourth day 


of the week, yes, perhaps = ‘the latter part of the week.’ In II Chron. 
7:10 the Arab. Version renders the Heb. “twenty-third day” by Wasa 
peel, “the half of the month.” Possibly an Aram. stem Nw5 ‘to 


follow’ is to be recognized. 


Nore 2. Psatm 22:27, 30 


In vs. 30 many commentators, from Pinsker on, read 45 ἮΝ instead 
of the unsuitable 455x of the Mas. text. This ΘΝ seems to have been 
copied or imitated by a scribe from the 55x" of vs. 27. But this latter 
term also is inappropriate. Vss. 27-32 form a separate psalm, an expec- 
tation of triumph for Yahweh and for Israel, with which, the poet declares 
(according to the Mas. text), the pious shall be satisfied. In vs. 27 the 
expression “the "39 shall eat and be satisfied” is commonly explained 
as a reference to a sacrificial meal, or else as a general expression of com- 
plete content. Neither of the explanations is probable. The mention of 


CRAWFORD HowELL Toy 9 


vows in vs. 26 does not involve a sacrificial meal, and there is no room for 
such a meal in the psalm; and the choice of the word “eat” in this con- 
nection to express pious satisfaction would be strange. The proper read- 
ing is suggested in the substantially identical verse 69:33: “the pious 
will see [Yahweh’s gracious intervention] and rejoice;” we should probably 
read IW? and Waw" for the ΟΝ" and Wwaw" of 22:27. Further, 
the "3137 in vs. 30 is suspicious: the “fat ones of the earth” may indeed 
be understood to mean the “flourishing, prosperous,” but the parallel 
line “all that go down to the dust” and the general context suggest a 
larger expression, Vss. 28, 29, 31, 32 announce the coming universal 
worship of Yahweh, and a universal statement in vs. 30 is to be expected. 
Universality may indeed be gained by recognizing in the verse two classes 
(individuals or nations), the rich (2121) and the poor ("By "7797"), or the 
prosperous and the feeble, or those who are in vigorous life on earth and 
those who have gone down to Sheol. But the expression "5) "779° 
does not mean either “the poor” or “the dead,” but rather “those who 
are in process of going down to the dust of death,” that is, mortals (cf. 
104:29; Job 7:21; 17:16; Eccles. 3:20). Wellhausen avoids the difficulty 
by omitting "T7497 55 and rendering the second line: “before him bow 
themselves in the dust.” But the form of vss. 27, 28 suggests a separate 
subject in this line; an appropriate reading is obtained by changing 
"327 to "S5w (so also Brill), which gives the sense: “Him alone shall 
worship all the inhabitants of the earth, before Him shall bow down all 
mortals.” The remainder of the verse is a gloss, intended to be an 
explanation of "Sy "77" 45, which is taken to mean “the poor.” In 
several verses there are third lines that confuse the general couplet 
arrangement. In vs. 24 “fear him all the folk (y"7) of Israel” is virtu- 
ally a repetition of the preceding “all the folk of Jacob honor Him” —it 
might be an original parallel, but is probably a scribal addition. The 
same thing is true of the unnecessary ending of vs. 25: “when he cried 
to him he heard.” Vs. 216, “‘may your hearts live forever!” is formally 
and logically indefensible; it appears to be the exclamation of a reader 
whose soul was stirred by the psalmist’s picture of the happiness of the 
righteous. In vs. 28 the 731" is unnecessary, and the suffix in 1:85 
must be made third person. The paragraph vss. 27-30 will then read: 
“The pious will see and rejoice, they will praise Yahweh that seek him. 
All the earth will turn to Yahweh, all nations will worship him. For the 
kingdom is Yahweh’s, he is ruler of the nations. All dwellers on earth 
will see and worship, all mortals will bow before him.” Vss. 31, 32 seem 
to be a later addition. 
Nore 3. Psautm 118:27 


mama nop 77 onava sm mow 5 ONT TT ON. = The 
antiquity of the text is vouched for by the ancient versions, which all 


10 Some CONCEPTIONS OF THE PSALTER 


follow it literally. All take 5m in the sense of ‘festival, and all except 
Pesh., Aq., and Hex. Syr. understand ὩΣ as=‘leafy boughs;’ both 
Syr. versions have ‘cords’ (or ‘chains’), and Aq. has ‘fat’ (πιμέλεσιν), 
which term is explained by a note in 95 to the effect that ‘cords’ here 
are intestines bound with fat, without dung (an allusion to a sacrifice). 
The rendering ‘festival’ for ΔΙῚ yields no satisfactory sense for the second 
half of the verse. The expression ‘bind the feast’ is unintelligible, and 
the Hebrew cannot here mean ‘begin the feast;’ the phrase “ΠΙΘ “ON 
(I Kings 20:14), cited for the meaning, refers to joining two armies in 
battle—it supposes two things to be joined, and the verb cannot have a 
single thing as its object. Wellhausen translates: “bind the festival 
with ropes,” with the remark that the line is “altogether enigmatical.” 
And it is decisive for this interpretation of 3% that there is no hint of a 
festival in the connection. The psalm appears to represent a body of 
persons (soldiers or others) who, celebrating a recent victory, march to 
the temple to render thanks, and are received and blessed by the priests 
(vs. 26); vs. 27a is apparently the response of the people, and on this 
follows vs. 27b, which thus does not refer to a festival. A procession 
there seems to be, and accordingly the sense ‘procession’ or ‘dance’ is 
assigned by some scholars to 3m. But this interpretation does not relieve 
the difficulty: apart from the question whether it is legitimate, it is not 
clear how a procession or a dance can be said, according to Old Testa- 
ment usage of terms, to be ‘bound.’ Those who so render 3M generally 
take ΠΩΣ» in the sense of ‘leafy boughs,’ as in Sept. and Lat., but 
without arriving at a satisfactory sense for the passage. Cheyne (in the 
first edition of his Book of Psalms): “bind the procession [that is, the 
members of the procession] with branches, (step on) to the altar-horns;” 
but a ‘procession’ cannot be bound, and the supposition that the person- 
ages of a procession were linked together by branches is purely imaginary; 
nor does it appear why the procession should advance to the horns of the 
altar (surely a difficult procedure) rather than to the altar simply. This 
interpretation is abandoned by Canon Cheyne in his second edition, where 
he substitutes for the Masoretic text an entirely different verse. The 
objections to Cheyne’s first rendering apply also to Duhm’s: “bind [or, 
twine| the dance with boughs up to the horns of the altar” (if, he adds, 
the text is correct), and, in part, to Baethgen’s suggestion that the mean- 
ing is: “bring the branches to the altar-horns and touch them,” the sup- 
position being that the sacred branches communicate sacredness to the 
altar —there is no authority for supposing such a ritual procedure. 
Luther, “adorn the festival with thick boughs,’ and Haupt (in SBOT), 
“decorate the route of the procession with garlands,” give an unwarranted 
meaning to the verb "ON. As to the word "May it occurs in the Old 
Testament only in thesense ‘cords’ and ‘clouds’ (Ezek. 19:11; 31:3,10,14); 
but, as there is an adjective MIy ‘leafy,’ the Sept. rendering may be 


CrAWFoRD ΗΟΜΕΙΙ, Toy yO 


accepted as possible, the reference being, apparently, to the boughs 
employed in the Sukkot celebration (Lev. 23:40), though these were used, 
not for processions or dances, but to build booths as temporary places of 
abode. With such a sense for ὩΣ the difficulty remains, however, 
that the term cannot be brought into intelligible connection with the other 
words of the verse. The ‘sacrifice’ of the English Version represents 
what was up to a few years ago the prevailing rendering of 3m in this 
passage. This rendering is based on the paraphrases of early rabbinical 
expositors who wished to secure literal exactness in the sacrificial ritual 
and in biblical references to it. The transitional interpretation appears 
in Targ. Onkelos on Ex. 23:18 where for Heb. “the fat of my 3m” the 
targumist writes, “the fat of the sacrifice of my MO,” inserting “sacri- 
fice” because the fat was that of the sacrificial animal. The discussion 
of 5m in Hag. 10b (with reference to Ex. 12:14; Lev. 23:41; Ex. 23:18) 
is cited in Levy’s Neuhebr. u. Ch. Whch. and Jastrow’s Dict. Talmud to 
prove that the word is used in the sense of ‘festal offering;’ but the con- 
text shows that all that is meant is that a 5m must be accompanied by 
offerings, in illustration of which Ex. 10:25 is quoted, where Moses says 
to Pharaoh: “thou must also give us sacrifices (Q°M27) and holocausts.” 
The verb 557 also is used in the Tract Hagiga simply in the sense ‘keep 
a feast’: Mishna 1:6, “he who does not keep the festival on the first day 
may keep it on any succeeding day”—it is unnecessary to render, “ he 
who does not sacrifice,” ete. The Targum on the psalm passage under 
consideration follows the method of Onkelos and expands so as to extract 
a meaning from the text: “bind the lamb for the sacrifice of the festival 
with chains until ye bring it near and apply its blood to the horns of the 
altar.” The Targum interpretation was followed by Kimhi and Rashi, 
and later many Christian commentators took 37% in the sense of ‘victim’ 
simply —so Schmid, Ainsworth, J. H. Michaelis, Delitzsch, Hitzig, Ewald, 
Hupfeld, Perowne, and others. It was explained that the animals were 
bound because they were very numerous, and in order that they might 
not get away; it was even suggested that they were raised up on to the 
horns of the altar and sacrificed (though animals were never slain on the 
altar). In support of the meaning ‘victim’ for 3™ recent writers have 
cited Ex. 23:18 (“the fat of my 3M”) and Mal. 2:3 (“the dung of your 
5m’s”); but there is no difficulty in regarding the fat and the dung as 
things pertaining to the festival. There is no reason for rendering 5M 
by ‘festal offering’ in any passage.’ Nor is there authority for the 
senses ‘procession’ and ‘sacred dance’ sometimes given it. The author 
of Ps. 42 associates keeping festival (357) with joy and thanksgiving, 
and probably alludes to a procession; but these are merely accessories 


9The word TOD is used in the Old Testament not only of the festival, but also of the 
victim (Ex. 12:21; Deut. 16:2; II Chron. 30:17ab; cf. I Cor. 5: 7); but this usage holds only 
for this one feast, and the expression TODM ΤΠ suggests that ‘animal’ or ‘victim’ 
may be the original sense of the word. 


12 Some CONCEPTIONS OF THE PSALTER 


of the 5. In I Sam. 30:16, where the Amalekites are D°mw" ΠΝ 
pai, the 1 doubtless means ‘having a merry time,’ that is, indulging 
in the merriment that was an ordinary feature of a 3™%—there is no 
ground for particularizing ‘dancing.’ For the significations *proces- 
sion,’ ‘pilgrim feast,’ appeal is made to the Arab. noun g=> which, 


though it is actually used only for pilgrimage to Mecca or Jerusalem, 
meant originally no doubt a journey or resort to a place (particularly a 
shrine or other sacred place), and then came naturally to include the 
ceremonies connected with the cult of the place. Such was probably the 
early use of the word in Hebrew; but in the Old Testament it means 
definitely the ‘festival’ as a whole, not particularly any one detail of the 
ceremonies. It may, then, be assumed that in the psalm-verse 37 means 
‘festival;’ that the psalm has nothing to do with a festival; that the verb 
"CON yields no satisfactory sense in the connection; that the expression 
Mata "Ap Ww is unintelligible (except in accounts of the construction 
of altars, of men seeking asylum, and in Am. 3:14 where it is threatened 
that the “AM Ῥ shall be cut off, the horns of the altar are elsewhere 
mentioned only in connection with the ritual application of blood to them, 
the preposition being 59). The first part of the verse may be a gloss, a 
fragment of the priestly blessing, Num. 6:25f. (Τὸν ΕΓ AN, 
etc.), suggested by vs. 26; how much of the blessing was inserted it is not 
possible to say—perhaps a couplet. The remainder of the verse seems 
to be a mechanical combination of fragments of several glosses. A scribe 
who supposed the psalm to refer to the Sukkot festival (vs. 25 was later 
used in connection with the festival) may have written 3m and perhaps 
p°na22 (ἡ in the sense of ‘boughs’). As a sacrifice was taken for 
granted (whether in connection with a festival or as a part of a thanks- 
giving ceremony), another rubric may have referred to the putting of 
blood Matar nap by. The [08 may possibly be corruption of the 
Nip? of the priestly blessing, or of wy, the technical term for the cele- 
bration of a festival. These rubrics, however they may have arisen, 
appear to have got into the text in the form of a sentence, which, how- 
ever, is unintelligible.” 


Norte 4. Psatm 40:7-9 


In regard to the translation of this passage it is to be noted that 
MNOM (v. 7) must, from the context, be rendered ‘sin-offering’ and not 
(as in Sept.) “βίῃ; that "50 ὨΣΔῺΞ "MND (vs. 8) does not mean, “I am 
come with [or, I bring] the roll of the book” (DeWette, Ewald, Hitzig, 
Delitzsch), but the “gm is to be taken with the following 345M5; and 
“sy ΞΊΏΞ means “prescribed to me.” The origin of the Sept. reading 

10 On the doubtful 43579" Ps. 107: 27, see the lexicons and commentaries; in any case 
the meaning is not ‘ dance.’ 


1! Briggs regards vss. 27 f. as glosses. 


CRAWFORD ΗΟΜΕΙ, Toy 13 


σῶμα δὲ κατηρτίσω μοι for > m5 DIN (vs. 7) is not clear; but, 
whether the σῶμα be scribal error for ὠτία (which appears in some Sept. 
MSS, and in the other Greek versions), or the clause be a Sept. para- 
phrase, or have passed into the Sept. from the Epistle to the Hebrews 10:5 
(as Grotius suggests), where it may be held to represent the free mes- 
sianic interpretation of the writer (not a probable supposition)— whatever 
its origin—it does not help the interpretation of the psalm passage or 
call for a change of the Hebrew text. The exegetical difficulties relate 
to the expressions "5 MD DIN, "MND IT MON IN, nd. 
“by SIND “DO. Apart from the strange and improbable use of the stem 
s775 in connection with ears (we might substitute MM, Mp, or eal: 
and the "5 po 7N instead of "JIN, the clause separates the parallel 
lines of the verse and has no natural connection with the thought of the 
paragraph; the first difficulty may be avoided by transposing the words, 
placing them, for example, after “then I said” (so Olshausen), or substi- 
tuting them for the first line of vs. 8 (Wellhausen, “mine ears hast thou 
opened by means of the book”). But these changes being made, the 
difficulty remains that in the Old Testament the opening or uncovering 
of the ears comes by a divine voice, not by a book; the psalmist lives in 
a literary period when guidance is received not by prophetic revelation, 
but by a written word. The allusion in "ANI TIM "NWN TN also 
is obscure: the point of time of the ΤᾺ is not indicated, the "AND sug- 
gests an unexplained movement, and the ΩΝ a preceding unrecorded 
address. It may be supposed, indeed, that the ΣΝ of vs. 7 involves 
an address; but this word is preceded by the negative x5 —God has made 
no demands. The construction in vs. 9b is not clear: the natural sense 
is, “in the book (a duty) is prescribed to me’”’—a book cannot be pre- 
scribed, only a course of conduct (as in IT Kings 22:13); and, further, the 
relation of the remark (concerning a duty prescribed) to the context is 
not clear. Much must be read into the text to get a satisfactory meaning 
from it. Various emendations have been proposed. Graetz in ys. 7 
writes 35 instead of x5, D720 IN for ΠΡΊΝ eli! LOL Lys). ane: 
renders, “if thou desiredst .... I would choose fat (beasts), if thou 
demandedst .... , then (vs. 8) I would say,” ete.; these changes, how- 
ever, are too numerous and violent, and the resultant sense does not com- 
mend itself. Duhm takes "M7738 TN to be a corrupt variant of ΤΙΝ 
m5, and translates 7b and the rest of 8: “sin-offering thou hast not 
required — lo, I have read it ("M132) in a roll of a book written for me,” 
and regards this as a gloss intended to furnish the authority for the 
seemingly radical statement of 7a; here also the changes of text-words are 
not probable (on the gloss see below). Briggs reads in 7b "5 A™D IN, 
and in 8a "5 ὨΞῺΝ TN, which he connects with the preceding line— 
changes that are phonetically easy, but still leave the course of the thought 


14 SoME CONCEPTIONS OF THE PSALTER 


vague. It seems clear that 7b (“ears thou hast digged to me”) cannot 
stand in its present place (even as parenthesis), since it separates the two 
lines of the couplet and destroys the rhythmic symmetry (so Olshausen, 
Wellhausen), Vs. 8 also is interruptive; Duhm’s suggestion of a gloss 
may relieve the difficulty in part, but unity and clearness are secured 
only by the omission of 7b and 8.” Vs. 8 is possibly the corrupt form 
of a marginal protest against Ta, c: “sacrifice,” the glossator may 
be supposed to say, “is nevertheless prescribed in the law.” Vs. 7b 
would still remain a problem; reversing Duhm’s conjecture, it might be 
corrupt doublet of 8a. In any case the thought of the passage is con- 
tained in vss. 7 and 9; the writer may have had in mind Jer. 7:21 ff., and 
similar ideas in the prophets; the glossator, on the other hand, would be 
appealing to the ritual law. This does not show that the original psalm- 
ist wrote before the time of Nehemiah, but only that he, like the sages, 
laid no stress on the sacrificial ritual. 


Norte 5. Vows ΙΝ THE PSALTER 


There are a number of references in the Psalter to vows, all approv- 
ing or sympathetic; the most relate to a favor received, and the vows were 
probably conditional: 22:26, the vows are to be paid because Yahweh has 
heard the ery of his servants; 50:14, the payment of vows is in connec- 
tion with a thank-offering; 56:13 f., the writer recognizes his obligation 
to pay his vows and make offerings because he has been rescued from 
death; 61:6, 9, God has heard vows and bestowed a blessing, and the 
psalmist sings praise day by day in order to pay his vows; 65:2 f., praise 
and payment of vows is due to God who is a hearer of prayer; 66:13 f., 19, 
the psalmist will pay vows uttered when he was in distress, for God heard 
his prayer; 76:12, vow and pay, for God is terrible; 116:12-18, for bene- 
fits conferred a thank-offering is to be made and vows are to be paid; 
132:2, reference to a vow said to have been made by David, to prepare 
an abode for Yahweh, that is, for the ark (there is no mention of this vow 
in our historical books—the reference rests, doubtless, on a current tra- 
dition). In all these cases (the last are, probably, not excepted) there 
was, it seems, the promise of an offering provided a certain request were 
granted. But, though the quid pro quo is of the essence of the vow, it 
is not necessary to suppose that the psalmists’ feeling was baldly com- 
mercial; it is probable that, along with the belief that success depended 
on divine intervention, the vow expressed a simple, devout thankfulness. 
Vow-making continued among the Jews into the talmudic period (Acts 
18:18; 21:23, and the Tract Nedarim), but with diminishing significance. 

12 Vs, 8 is thrown out by Stade in his paper on Ps. 40 in Oriental. Studien Th. Ndldeke 
gewidmet, pp. 632 f. 

13 Possibly: ‘‘ But I say, sin-offering [MNUM for ἼΩΝ MM] is prescribed,” etc. 

14In vs. 23 Wellhausen’s ἜΣ Dow, for Stier DW, seems probable. 


CRAWFORD ΗΟΨΈΠΙ, Toy 15 


in Prov. 31:2 the vow, with prayer that a son be given, is of the simplest 
sort; the naive, non-moral popular usage is described in Prov. 7:14; the 
text of Prov. 20:25 is in disorder, but the reference seems to be the effort 
to avoid payment. Eccles. 5:3f. is contemptuous of those who delay 
payment; the business-like mode of conducting the affair is indicated by 
the fact that a messenger is sent to collect the amount due. In Ben-Sira 
there is no mention of vows—the sages took little interest in them. And 
though legislation and comment on the practice was continued by Jewish 
scholars till a late period (Maimonides, Yad, and the Sulhan ‘Aruk), 
there are indications (as in Ned. 20a, 22a) that it was disliked and dis- 
couraged by some rabbis. It is a survival from an early low stage of 
religion, and tended to fall into disuse in proportion as religion became 
ethically and intellectually clear. 


Note 6. Protest aGAINST SACRIFICE 


That there was a Jewish movement of indifference to sacrifice down 
to the fall of Jerusalem is clear from the history. It is only necessary 
to recall, in addition to the passages cited above, the broad thought of 
Dan., chap. 9, the failure of the Onias temple to attract the worship of 
the Egyptian Jews (though the superior dignity of the Jerusalem temple 
doubtless contributed to this result), the strict ethical tone of the sages 
mentioned in the Pirke Abot, particularly Antigonos of Soko (whose 
Greek name and his expression “let the fear of Heaven be on you” (cf. 
Dan. 4:23] suggest foreign influence), the attitude of the Essenes, and the 
tone of the greater part of the New Testament, particularly the Sermon on 
the Mount and such spiritualizing conceptions of sacrifice as those of Rom. 
12:1; Phil. 2:17. The Jewish movement was part of a general western 
movement that included Greece and Rome, Egypt, and western Asia. 
The recoil from the naive, non-moral popular worship, visible as early as 
Plato, took the form of the establishment of mysteries and new cults like 
those of Isis and Serapis. There was a succession of great moralists, 
Greek and Roman Platonists and Stoics, and a long line of men of noble 
moral character. In Plato, Cleanthes, Seneca, Plutarch and many others 
there are indications of desire for individual religious independence and 
individual union with God. The period, one of extraordinary religious 
excitement and activity and of religious creative power, was marked by 
moral exaltation and by a corresponding elevation of the conception of 
God. It was in this world that the great body of the psalmists lived, 
and it is natural to suppose that they were affected by its tone and its 
ideas. The Jewish movement was, doubtless, as is remarked above, in 
part native, but it was probably stimulated, heightened, and colored by 
the outside influences. The Jews were far from being intellectually 
isolated. They mixed freely, as the narratives of Josephus and I Mac- 
cabees show, with Persians, Greeks, and Romans; and the intellectual 


10 ΞΟΜῈ CONCEPTIONS OF THE PSALTER 


and religious influence thence resulting is visible in such books as 
Proverbs, Koheleth, Wisdom of Solomon, Tobit, and Enoch, as well as 
in Philo and the New Testament. There was then a meeting and partial 
amalgamation of all the elements of the western world. 


§2 

The Jews formulated a noteworthy conception of law—not of 
natural law, but of social and religious law, supernaturally given, 
infallible and eternal. In contrast with the theory of a world 
governed by immutable natural or physical forces, they conceived 
a society resting on rules that supplied all the material of life. 
This view is expressed more or less distinctly in a number of 
passages in the Psalter: 12:7; 19:8ff.; 25:4 ff; 26:3; 37:31; 
94:10, 12; 111:7f; 119. The striking characteristic of this 
law, as the psalmists and other Jews thought of it, is that it is 
external to man, given from without and imposed on life by non- 
human authority. It is true, of course, that the details of the 
code were the product of Jewish experience; but they were held 
to have been given directly by God, and in that fact lay their 
special value to pious Jews. The law took the place of the old 
spontaneous utterances of the prophets, and, to a great extent, of 
the sacrificial ritual; in Ps. 119 it is almost personified, and 
appears to take the place of God himself in the affection and 
reverence of the writer. This change in the religious attitude 
rested on a justifiable instinct. The prophets were not seldom 
creatures of impulse, and their utterances were sometimes called 
forth by ill-understood circumstances. The sacrificial ritual was a 
ceremony that did not take hold of the daily life of man. Society, 
to be well ordered, required an organic law, dictated by wisdom, 
fixed once for all, competent to guide men in the doubtful and 
dangerous experiences of life. All civil or social law is in a 
certain sense based on external authority; the peculiarity of the 
Jewish view was that the authority was regarded as divine. The 
law was external, not only in its source, but also in its material: 
it dealt with the visible actions only, not concerning itself with 
motives and feelings; the command of the Decalogue against 
coveting refers not to mere desire, but to desire that it is intended 
to realize in action. 


CRAWFORD HoweELu Toy 17 


In the Psalter this conception of externality in its double 
sense, is modified and in part neutralized by the distinct attribu- 
tion of moral purity to the law (as in Ps. 19) and by the appeal 
to man’s own sense of its perfection. A pivotal term in Ps. 119 
is “knowledge.” Knowledge is said to be necessary in order 
that the law may be comprehended, and it is the law that is repre- 
sented as giving insight. The psalmist turns unconsciously from 
the outward authority to the inward, and becomes himself the 
judge of the excellence of the law; his ‘“‘knowledge” is substan- 
tially identical with the ‘“‘wisdom” of Proverbs, though it is not 
formally applied, like the “wisdom” of Proverbs, to all the 
affairs of life; it rather represents the beginning of the move- 
ment that culminated in the Hokma literature. This movement 
stands isolated in the Jewish development—it is equally remote 
from the early life of public worship and ceremonial obedience 
and from the later rabbinical science. After the first century 
B. O. it passes out of existence—the current of Jewish thought 
went in a different direction. The exaltation of knowledge was 
not a pure Jewish product—it must be referred in part to foreign 
influence, perhaps Persian,” but probably mainly Greek. It is 
not surprising that some of the writers of our psalms should be 
affected by the Persian and Greek worlds in which they lived. 
The reason for the reception of such a production as Ps. 119 into 
the collection of psalms is probably to be found, not in the sup- 
position that it was written for synagogue worship, but in its 
national tone. It glorifies the national law, and it alludes to 
experiences of trial and rescue, which, if individual, befell the 
man as a member of the nation. Of the services in the syna- 


gogues of the pre-Christian time we have no information except 
what is suggested by the name προσευχή given to an Egyptian 
synagogue in a Greek inscription of the second century B. ©.” 
From this and from Luke 4:16 ff. it may be inferred that the 
exercises consisted in prayer and reading from the Scriptures, 
that is, the Tora and the Prophets; the poetical books were cer- 
tainly not canonized before the second century B. ©. (probably 


15 See note 7, p. 19. 
16 See Grenfell, Hunt and Smyly, The Tebtunis Papyri, I, No. 86, ll, 18, 29. 


18 ΞΟΜῈ CONCEPTIONS OF THE PSALTER 


not before the first century), and it is not likely that singing or 
chanting hymns formed part of the exercises in a προσευχή. 
While there was no scientific recognition of natural law among 
the Jews of the pre-Christian period, there are traces in the 
Psalter of a half-scientific curiosity respecting the physical world 
and the life of beasts and men. Without laying undue stress on 
the description in Pss. 19 (the sun traversing the sky, like a bride- 
groom issuing from his chamber or a strong man joyously entering 
on a race), 29 (the passage of a thunder-storm over Palestine),” 
104 (the habits of terrestrial and marine beasts), 107: 23-30 
(the experiences of mariners), we may feel that the writers, in 
their framework in praise to God, yet lose themselves in admira- 
tion of the phenomena described. A comparison of Ps. 8:4—9 
with Gen. 1:28 and Job 7:17 f. (cf. IV Ezr. 8:34) is instructive. 
The passage in Genesis is the mere statement of a fact of expe- 
rience —man’s dominion over the lower animals; Job asks with 
bitter or scornful skepticism, why the supreme deity should 
occupy himself with so insignificant a being as man; the psalmist, 
reflecting on man’s twofold position—his smallness and weakness 
in comparison with the great heavenly bodies, and his lordship 
over all other terrestrial creatures—appears to have in mind a 
problem; he is neither scornful nor a mere chronicler, but seeks 
to understand the significance of man’s place in the universe.” Ps. 
139, in addition to its noteworthy formulation of the conception 
of God’s omnipresence and his acquaintance with men’s thoughts, 
shows a peculiar interest in the formation of the human body in 
the womb (vss. 13-16)—a physiological inquiry similar to that 
of Job 10:8-11 and more detailed than that of Eccles. 11:5. The 
Hebrew text is unfortunately in bad condition, so that the whole 
thought of the passage cannot be recovered, but the writer’s 
approach to scientific curiosity is apparent.” Such reflections as 
appear in these psalms (8 and 139), though their application is 
religious, betray a mundane interest in man, and suggest that 
more lay in the minds of the writers than is visible in the text. 
They may be referred to the general progress of Jewish thought 
at a time when their world was full of intellectual excitement. In 


17 See note 8, p. 20. 18 See note 9, p. 21. 19 See note 10, p. 22. 


CrRAwFoRD Howe. Toy 19 


Ecclesiastes the allusion to the embryo is intended to illustrate 
human ignorance—in the psalm it is made the occasion of 
devout wonder, and thus acquires liturgical value. 


NOTES 
Note 7. Perrstan Reriaious INFLUENCE 


The traces of Persian influence in the later Jewish angelology and 
demonology, and also in the formulation of the doctrine of resurrection, 
are unmistakable. For the earlier period (the fifth, fourth, and third 
centuries B. 6.) the fact of such influence is less certain. It is not quite 
clear what the Persian religious thought of that time was. But, assum- 
ing that the ideas now found in the Gathas were then current, it is obvi- 
ous that there are noteworthy resemblances between them and certain 
ideas of the Old Testament Psalter. Thus, the Gathas have the contrast 
of righteous and wicked (Yasna 31:17; al.), and the righteous body 
appears substantially as a church, which is spoken of in the reverent and 
affectionate tone that is common in the Psalter. Both works portray 
national struggle, and deplore national suffering: the yasnas represent a 
conflict between an agricultural population and a nomadic, and lament 
the loss of kine; the psalms speak less definitely of deprivations and 
oppressions. In both the human qualities insisted on are piety and obe- 
dience, and these are held to bring happiness. In both it is sometimes 
hard to distinguish a moral element in the lamentations; in many cases 
the “righteousness” of the Gathas seems. to be wholly or partly ritual. 
Ahura Mazda guides and blesses by his righteousness, goodness, and 
power, and by his spirit; his religion is called the Truth, as against the 
Lie of the enemy. The “wisdom” of the Gathas is enlightenment that 
guides men in the affairs of life (Yasna 31:22; 32:9; 48:3, 6, 11; al.)—it 
is based on and directed by the divine law, and so far corresponds to the 
“understanding” of certain psalms, especially Ps. 119, and to the “wis- 
dom” of Prov., chaps. 1-7, ete. There is no trace in the Gathas of the 
personified cosmogonic Wisdom—no one of the Amesha Spentas has such 
arole. It would seem, therefore, that the conception of wisdom in Prov. 
8:22-31 and Wisdom of Solomon cannot have come from Persian sources, 
and this fact throws doubt on the existence of specific Persian influence 
in the earlier conception of wisdom in the Psalter. Probably the most 
that can be said is that the Jewish idea grew up naturally in the Persian- 
Greek intellectual atmosphere in which the Jews lived. It may be 
added that the ameretat of the Gathas, supposing it to signify ethical 
immortality, marks an important difference between them and the psalms 
—in the latter there is no statement of immortality. The passages com- 
monly relied on in Ps. 49 and 73 to prove the existence of this idea are 
not decisive. In Ps. 49:16, if the verse be genuine (by some it is rejected 


20 SoME CONCEPTIONS OF THE PSALTER 


as a gloss), the expressions "53 75" mabe and "2 Sew 2 
“Imp do not signify in the Psalter life after death; see Pss. 18:5 ff. 
30:4; 33:18 f.; 86:13; 88:4, 7 (cf. Prov. 23:14), where similar terms are 
used to express rescue from physical death on earth, and this interpreta- 
tion of 49:16 accords with the context. So also the course of thought in 
Ps. 73 points to such rescue in ys. 24: “ITpn ΠἼΞ5 ἜΓΙΝ ΤΙΣ ΣᾺ ἼΣΩΣ 
—the psalm is an exposition of the precariousness of the earthly life and 
ambitions of the wicked, and of the folly of envying these persons —for 
himself the psalmist expects a different lot on earth (vss. 25-28). The 
first clause of vs. 24 is explained by the preceding verse: yay “ἼΔΩ "3N4 
7797 ΠΣ NIMN, where the reference is to this life. The second clause, 
according to the poetic usage, naturally has a similar reference, but the 
text is in disorder. The 7525 cannot well mean glory on earth or glory 
in heaven. Graetz and Wellhausen propose api) 9 rip =| TANS) (Graetz: 
perhaps “3p7Mn), to which an objection is that the resultant sense is 


the same as that of vs. 23b, and the expression “takest me after thee” is 
strange. Duhm thinks that ΠΡΟ is a technical term for the translation 
of a man to heaven or to paradise (Gen. 5:24; II Kings 2:9f.); it is 
employed, however, in Ps. 18:17 to express rescue from deadly peril. 
The "22355 “=p 3755 of vs. 26 does not necessarily signify death — it 
may mean only great distress; cf. Pss. 31:11; 39:11; 90:7; 119:81. The 
parallelism of 73:23-26 with 16:7-11 is obvious: both begin with a refer- 
ence to divine guidance in earthly life, and end with expressions of the 
conviction that God will not abandon his servants to death (that is, pre- 
mature or unhappy earthly death); the "ΠΣ Wx. of 73:24 corre- 


sponds to the "349" .. My" of 16:7; vs. 24b, “OMprl! Wiss ANT 
may be a corrupt fusion of two readings 3°3 AIM) and ἘΡΩ͂Ν rads 
both taken from ys. 23b. The omission of vs. 24 would not impair the 
thought of the passage, would rather make it clearer: “I am always with 
thee—thou holdest my hand; I have no helper but thee in heaven or on 
earth—though I be reduced to extremity, God is my strength always; 
those that are far from thee perish, but I draw near to thee.” 


Nore 8. Psaum 29 


The description of the thunderstorm is contained in vss. 2-10 (or, as 
some hold, in vss. 2-9). Vss.1 and 2 are a liturgical formula (ef. 96:7 f.) 
and vs. 11 is liturgical ending. With Briggs I omit 3b (as a gloss explain- 
ing that the voice of Yahweh is thunder, and as destroying the couplet 
symmetry) and, with many critics, insert Dp before FI" in3c. Invs.5b 
I omit 79" as a rhythmically undesirable scribal explicitum. In vs. 6, 
with all recent critics, the suffix is to be omitted, and the first half of the 
verse made to end with 19925. Vs. 7 is defective (so Olshausen, al.); 
most commentators complete it by adding a noun in the first half and a 


CrAawFrorD ΗΌΜΕΙ, Toy 21 


verb in the second half. Briggs omits it as interrupting the thought, but 
it is not probable that a scribe would insert an independent sentence that 
is not of the nature of an explanatory gloss. The 7" of 80 is better 
omitted, in accordance with the norm of the couplets, as explicitum. It 
seems necessary in vs. 9a, in order to maintain the reference to inanimate 
nature, to point mis instead of MDS *N (so Lowth, Cheyne, Duhm, 
Briggs, al.) and in 9b, with Briggs, to substitute The Sp for, LOL 
the sake of the meter. Vs. 9c stands isolated—it has no natural connec- 
tion with the preceding or the following context; the "55 has no ante- 
cedent— it cannot well refer to the objects just enumerated, and the Sera 
must mean the celestial palace of Yahweh. It may be a misplaced gloss 
on vss. 1, 2, and is here better omitted (so Briggs). The $9270 of vs. 10 
has defied all attempts at explanation; an allusion to Noah’s flood is out 
of the question, since it would be here irrelevant, and the picture of Yah- 
weh sitting on the celestial ocean (if 54273 could be so used, which is 
improbable, if not impossible) would be contrary to Old Testament 
usage and somewhat grotesque; nor can the 2 mean the storm just 
described, in which there is wind, thunder, and lightning, but no flood. 
The text appears to be corrupt, and Ps. 9:5 suggests the reading #7" 
S10" NOS by ; in the second half 4" may be omitted. It is a ques- 
tion whether the verse should be assigned to the body of the psalm or to 
the liturgical ending; but, as it lacks the ejaculatory and petitionary tone 
proper to such ending, it seems better to make it part of the description; 
the poet may be supposed to conclude his picture of Yahweh’s power with 
the general statement that he sits on his throne as king forever. The 
psalm proper will then consist of eight couplets, to which an ascription 
of praise has been prefixed and a liturgical sentence appended. 


Nore 9. Psaum 8 


The original psalm consists of vss. 4-9. Vss. 2 and 10 are current 
expressions, liturgical introduction and conclusion. Vs. 3 bears no rela- 
tion to the thought of the psalm (which is reflection on the manifestation 
of Yahweh’s power in the heavenly bodies, and on man’s remarkable 
position in the world), is rhythmically loose, almost prose, and interrupts 
the rhythmical structure of the psalm. It is an allusion to national for- 
tunes that might be appropriate in Ps. 44, where the expression "3573 
pps 378 occurs (vs. 17), but is here out of place. The allusion in 
the first clause is obscure to us: the Ὡ ΟἽ and ὉΠ. may be meant 
figuratively — there is, perhaps, a reference to some historica] fact (mili- 
tary or similar occurrence), not mentioned elsewhere, when a great salva- 
tion was wrought by feeble means. The verse appears to have been 
inserted by an editor or a scribe who thought that the psalm should 
not be left without a national coloring. 


22 SomE CONCEPTIONS OF THE PSALTER 


Norte 10. Psautm 139:13-16 


The text of this paragraph is in such condition that it is impossible 
to recover its full meaning, but some emendations may be suggested. 
On account of the initial "5 of vs. 13 it seems better to follow Hitzig in 
transposing 13 and 14 (so Duhm, al.). In vs. 14 the ΟΞ MIND 
appears to be a gloss in explanation of the following p-xd=>; the form 
ΟΞ is suspicious (&B omits the final "). Vs. 15 has three clauses, of 
which the third seems to be a gloss on the second. The expression 
yx nvnnns "map" has received several explanations, none of which 


is satisfactory. A reference to the pre-existence of souls is excluded 
by the fact that it is not the soul but the body that is here spoken of; 
cf. Wisd. Sol. 8:20, where it is said that the pre-existent soul came into 
a body fitted to receive it. The supposition that the secret workshop in 
which the body is constructed (the womb) is here figuratively called 
Sheol, the dark and mysterious depths of the earth (Perowne, Cheyne, 
with references to Aesch., Humen. 665, ἐν σκότοισι νηδύος τεθραμμένη, and 
Koran 39:8, “he created you .... in the wombs of your mothers... . 
in three darknesses”’) hardly does justice to the words—there is no sug- 
gestion of a figure here, and the fact that the womb is described as dark 
would not account for the definite statement of the text. Nor does it 
seem allowable to suppose an allusion to the earth, out of which Adam 
was formed, as the mother and womb of man; and the reference here is 
not to the “earth,” but to the “depths of the earth,” which elsewhere in 
the Old Testament means “Sheol” (Ezek. 26:20; 31:14, 16,18; 32:18, 24; 
Isa. 44:23; Ps. 63:10, cf. Deut. 32:22; Ps. 86:13; 88:7). Evidence that 
the womb is imaginatively identified with the earth or with Sheol is 
supposed to be found in Job 1:21: “naked I came forth from my 
mother’s womb and naked I shall return thither.” But it is doubtful 
whether the two passages are parallel. Job 1:21 is admittedly obscure 
and difficult. On the face of it the “thither” refers to the “mother’s 
womb.” If this last expression be taken literally, such a reference in 
the “thither” is impossible. If it be held to mean “mother earth,” then 
the “thither” refers to the earth and not to Sheol (and therefore does 
not explain the psalm passage in question); if “thither” refers to Sheol 
(as, from the usage of the Book of Job, it must do), then, since “womb” 
cannot be Sheol, there must be a leap of imagination between the be- 
ginning of the sentence and its end—the “mother’s womb” is most 
naturally to be taken in its literal sense. Job may use the word “thither” 
loosely, not so much to describe a condition similar to that which pre- 
ceded life (Davidson) as to point to the future abode of all men (Budde); 
he would say: “Naked I was born, naked I shall return to where all 
men rest after death”—the curtness of the expression being intelligible 


CRAWFORD ΗΟΜΕΙΙ, Toy 23 


in an epigrammatic utterance like his.” In the psalm, on the other hand, 
in a quasi-scientific account of the formation of the embryo, it is explicitly 
stated that it was shaped in Sheol—an impossible conception. Nor is 
much gained by inserting 5 and reading “as [=as it were] in Sheol” 
(Perowne, Duhm), for the naturalness of the comparison in this con- 
nection is not obvious. The clause is best treated as a scribal insertion, 
and an explanation of how the insertion came to be made may be found 
in Isa. 45:19, where the expression “in secret” is parallel to “in the 
land of darkness,” that is, “in Sheol;” a scribe familiar with this passage 
or with this sense of the words “in secret” may have written on the 
margin of the psalm-verse what he thought to be its synonym. As is 
remarked above, the psalm formulates distinctly for the first time in the 
Old Testament the ideas of Yahweh’s absolute omnipresence (including 
his control of the dwellers in Sheol) and his immediate knowledge of 
men’s thoughts. In earlier Old Testament writings Yahweh’s special 
abode is his temple; he is not thought of as being in Sheol (Isa. 38: 18— 
44:23 is hardly an exception); and he deals with deeds, infers motives 
from acts (Gen. 6:5), and communicates his will by words, or changes 
men’s spirits (Ezek. 36: 26), sometimes by the infusion of his own spirit 
(Ps. 51:12b). The reason for the complete absence of relations between 
Yahweh and Sheol in the greater part of the Old Testament is not clear. 
With a few exceptions, Sheol is mentioned only as the abode of the 
dead. Yahweh may cause the earth to open and swallow men up (Num. 
16:30)—these then go down to Sheol, but he has nothing more to do 
with them. His anger may kindle a fire that will burn to the subter- 
ranean Sheol and set on fire the foundations of the mountains (Deut. 
32:22), but he himself does not enter the underworld. To ransom one 
from the hand of Sheol (Hos. 13:14, al.) is to rescue him from earthly 
death. Even when Sheol shouts for joy, along with the heavens and the 
earth, at the redemption of Israel (Isa. 44:23), Yahweh is not concerned 
with the life below, though here we must recognize a step toward the 
larger view. According to Am. 9:2, Yahweh’s power reaches to Sheol — 
he is able to take men thence; this statement occurs in a passage that is 
probably late, since the next verse makes mention of the mythical marine 
dragon, and these mythical figures appear only in late parts of the Old 
Testament (see note 12). The first hint of a friendly social interest in 
Sheol on Yahweh’s part is given in Job 14:13, where, however, it is put 
as a bare possibility: “Oh that thou wouldest hide me im Sheol... . 
wouldest appoint me a set time and remember me!” Ps. 139 goes 
beyond all other Old Testament utterances in its distinct statement that 
Yahweh is in Sheol as he is in heaven. The constantly broadening con- 
ception of his rule forced this psalmist to the conclusion that he was as 


20Cf, Ben-Sira 40:1, where the antithesis ‘‘mother’s womb’? and ‘‘mother of all 
things”’ is expressed clearly. 


24 Some CoNCEPTIONS OF THE PSALTER 


really in the underworld as he was on earth; and this conclusion was 
doubtless a preparation for the introduction of a moral element into the 
future life such as appears in Enoch and Wisdom of Solomon. The 
absence of Yahweh from Sheol in the earlier Hebrew literature leaves 
the lower world without a divine head. The presence of a well-defined 
god in the Babylonian underworld might suggest that the Hebrew cos- 
mological scheme once included such a deity, and that he has been 
effaced from the existing records by the late monotheistic editors. It is 
in favor of this view that, not to mention Hindus, Greeks, and Romans, 
even barbarous and half-civilized peoples, such as the Fijians and the 
Maoris, when they have constructed a tolerably well-organized hades, 
provide it with a divine ruler, as, indeed, it seems natural that a people 
possessed of gods should have a god for every place. On the other 
hand, we know too little of the early theological history of the Semitic 
Canaanites and North Arabians to hazard an opinion on their attitude 
toward the life after death and their conception of hades; and it seems 
unlikely that, if there had been a Hebrew god of the underworld, there 
should not have survived some mention of him or allusion to him in the 
Old Testament. There is no such mention or allusion: the proposed 
identification of the 59752 of Ps. 18:5 (parallel to mig and Sonw) with 
the Babylonian Belili, or Belilitum, a goddess of the underworld, is pre- 
carious and unnecessary; 5y"53, as=‘ruin,’ gives a good sense, and in 
any case it must mean ‘Sheol’ and not ‘the god of Sheol.’ 


ξ 8 

The view, held by the psalmists in common with the prophets, 
that the world was governed in the interests of the Israelite 
people, might seem to make a rational system of ethics impos- 
sible—it is not only unscientifically narrow, it also makes the 
divine governor of the world unjust. Nor is it the whole Jewish 
nation that the Psalter regards as the center of the world—it is 
only a part of it, called “righteous” in distinction from another 
part called ‘‘wicked;” the term ‘wicked,’ it is true, sometimes 
refers to non-Jews, but in a number of passages it designates 
those Israelites who are held by the writer to be disloyal to the 
national faith. The terms PX, TOM, YW are often simply 
party-names, and therefore they have in themselves no moral 
content. A "OM or PS, maintaining his allegiance to the 
national law, may be ethically bad; a ¥W", sympathizing with 
foreign thought, or a personal enemy of the psalmist, may be 
ethically good. The accounts that we have of the “wicked” come 


CRAWFORD HowELL Toy 25 


chiefly from the opposing party, and must be taken cautiously.” 
Nor is the optimism of the Psalter in itself ethical. It is ulti- 
mately a healthy and frank, though narrow, confidence in the 
national destiny; as the prophets regarded their convictions of 
right as the voice of God speaking in them, so prophets and 
psalmists regarded their confidence in the national future as a 
divine promise. This was healthy in so far as confidence in self 
is an element of success; it becomes a misfortune when it engen- 
ders fatuous hope and supineness, but into this pit the psalmists 
and Jewish people generally did not fall—they never ceased to 
struggle. Their trust in God tended to give them calmness and 
happiness, and had the important ethical result that suffering was 
interpreted as disciplinary. If the ethical theory of the Psalter 
is thus somewhat confused, there is visible in the book, on the 
other hand, the feeling that human. destiny is determined by 
conduct (so in all confessions of sin, individual and national), 
and this remains as a fundamental ethical principle, though its 
particular applications are sometimes marred by narrow nation- 
alism and party feeling. At the bottom of lamentations and 
rejoicings lies an unformulated conviction that the constitution 
and course of things is on the side of virtue; that is, in the lan- 
guage of religion, that God favors and maintains what is right 
and good; and this belief has ethical value (since it holds up 
the right as an ideal) apart from the question whether the con- 
ception of the good is always pure. If the question be asked 
whether a psalmist conceives of God as a good being, a distinction 
must be made between his acceptance of his idea of good as a 
necessary quality of the supreme deity, and his definition of good. 
As to the first point, there is no hint (none, for example, in 51:6) 
that God is regarded in the Psalter otherwise than as perfectly 
just and good—there is no such skepticism as appears in Job and 
Koheleth. The thought of the book (as is natural in a liturgical 
collection) lies outside of that spirit of philosophical inquiry that 
existed in the Jewish world for several centuries. To the psalm- 
ists Yahweh is sometimes hard to understand, but there is no 
doubt of his ethical perfection. As to the second point, the moral 


21See note 11, p. 27. 


20 SomE CONCEPTIONS OF THE PSALTER 


code of the Psalter is in general the current one of the time. 
Omitting its hatred of enemies (to which attention is called in 
Matt. 5:43), it recognizes the ordinary social virtues (as in Pss. 
15, 24). There is perhaps a hint of a finer feeling in 35:13 f. 
(sympathy with persons who afterward proved to be enemies), 
but the situation alluded to is not clear. There is no injunction 
to be kind to enemies, such as is found in Prov. 24:17; 25:21f., 
nor any prohibition of retaliation like that in Prov. 24:29; Tobit 
4:15; the commands to rescue an enemy’s ox or ass (Ex. 23:4 f.) 
and to love one’s fellow-countryman as one’s self (Lev. 19:18) are 
doubtless taken for granted. The non-moral side of sacrifice 
is rejected. Man is assumed to be a free agent, but there is no 
recognition of temptation and moral struggle; he stands in direct 
relation with God—Satan is not mentioned, and there is no 
intermediary between God and man. 

The question whether the doctrine of original sin and total 
depravity is found in the Psalter is of no great importance for 
its ethical attitude. Only one passage (51:7) has been supposed 
to contain this idea, and it, standing alone, does not affect the 
general position; it is immaterial whether the speaker in the psalm 
is an individual or the nation, but the phraseology of vs. 7 points 
naturally to an individual. The majority of modern scholars hold 
properly that the verse does not contain the notion of innate sin- 
fulness, but merely (like 58:4; Jer. 17:9, and the story in Gen., 
chap. 3) regards man (every individual or the nation) as weak 
and liable to go astray. The view that generation is sinful is not 
Hebraic (Gen. 1:28; Pss. 127, 128); the law of Lev., chap. 12, 
is the survival of a tabu custom of savage times (in which birth 
is regarded as something mysterious and dangerous), and the 
prescription of a sin-offering treats the woman as the sanctuary 
and the altar are treated in Ezek. 45:18 f.; Lev. 16:16, 18. The 
="z" of the Old Testament, described as 9", is simply bad thought, 
regarded as leading to bad action; there is no trace of the half- 
personification of Ben-Sira 37:3 and the later Judaism. Nor is 
it clear that the conception of inherited qualities is to be found 
in Ps. 51:7 or elsewhere in the Old Testament. It is probable 
rather that the phenomena of life were observed every one for 


- 


CRAWFORD HoweELL Toy Pal 


itself, without any attempt to construct a theory of derivation and 
perpetuation through birth; of such a theory there is no trace. 
Nor is predestination to be found in 51:6: ‘against thee, thee 
only, have I sinned.” The words express the speaker’s conviction 
(be he Israel or an individual) that he has been blameless toward 
man, but has sinned against God; the nature of his sin is not 
indicated, but probably it was somehow connected with the non- 
observance of the national law, that is, with disloyalty to the 
national God.” The verse is therefore regarded by Olshausen and 
others as pointing to Israel as the speaker; this interpretation is 
possible, and gives a good sense, yet the words and those of vs. 15 
(“I will teach transgressors thy ways”) may well have been 
uttered by an individual who shared the experiences and the ideals 
of the nation. The antithesis of natural and supernatural is 
not peculiar to the Psalter—it is found throughout the Old Tes- 
tament and in all religions except Buddhism; its bearing on the 
creation of a rational system of ethics cannot be discussed here, 
but it may be remarked that, though it may dim the conception 
of the natural moral life, it does not in the Psalter wholly destroy 
it; cf. 15; 24:4; 50:18-20; 119, and also 144:12-15. 


NOTES 
Nore ll. Dop Ss, TON, Ow 

While many psalms reveal a conflict between the D°p"7¥ and the 
ὉΠ, and the antagonism may be partly one of ideas, there is not 
satisfactory evidence in the Psalter that the O°yw™ stand for specific 
Greek skeptical and theosophical opinions and practices. Friedlander 
goes beyond the record in discovering in the Psalter a polemic against 
literal atheism and cosmogonic mysteries;* the collision between the 
“pious” and the “wicked,” he says, was a struggle of the national par- 
ticularistic piety against the new spirit that was forcing its way in and 
threatened to do away with the traditional simple piety, to gentilize 
the masses, and to destroy the Jewish nationality—a struggle of the 
piety of humility against the intellectual arrogance that dared to philoso- 
phize about God and his ways. Now, it is true that at the time of the 
Maccabean uprising, and before and after that time, there was a hellen- 
izing movement among the Jews: Greek customs were widely adopted, 

22The expression "YY PAYA YAM makes it less possible that the sin referred to 
is one inadvertence or merely the cherishing of pride or other sinful feeling. 

23In his Griechische Philosophie im Alten Testament, pp. 40-50. 


28 SomE CONCEPTIONS OF THE PSALTER 


and certain Greek ideas were accepted. But, according to our records, 
the modification of religious doctrine did not go beyond a certain point. 
Job and Koheleth doubt whether there is a moral government of the 
world, and advance toward a naturalistic conception of life, but both 
maintain the theistic point of view and are silent respecting esoteric 
religious teachings; and Agur’s sarcasm (Prov. 30:2-4) is directed, not 
against a theistic belief, but against those theologians (not mystagogues, 
but practical Jewish teachers) who professed to be intimately acquainted 
with God’s designs and methods of procedure. It is conceivable, of 
course, that speculative atheism and gnosticism existed among the Jews 
as early as the second century B.c.; but, if so, the circle holding such 
views appears to have been too small to call forth a protest from the 
orthodox leaders.* The atheism referred to in the Psalter is a quasi- 
Epicurean feeling that God does not concern himself with human affairs 
—it is allied to the skepticism of Job and Koheleth, though ethically 
different from it: the yw" of Ps. 10 who says to himself that there is 
no God (vs: 4) says also that God has forgotten to look into his deeds 
(vs. 11); the 525 of Ps. 14 (and 53) is a man who acts as if there were 
no God to call him to account; these persons are like those of Mal. 3:14 
who thought there was no profit in being good. Nor does the polemic 
in the Psalter against the “proud” refer to the arrogance of philosophical 
speculation. The insolence that speaks “great things” (Ps. 12:4) shows 
itself in oppression of the poor (vs. 6); the arrogant of Ps. 75:4-7 are 
those who fancy that their power resides in themselves without regard 
to man or God; and whatever the M3573 and ὨΠΝΟΞΣ with which the 
author of Ps. 131 declines to occupy himself, the concluding exhortation, 
“Oh Israel, hope in Yahweh,” points rather to social and political than 
to philosophical difficulties. The Job passages cited by Friedlander are 
to be understood in a similar way: the yw of 15:20-35 who stretches 
out his hand against God and defies the Almighty (vs. 25) is an yo 


who conceives mischief and brings forth iniquity; the picture in Job, 
chap. 21 and 22:13-17 is like that in Ps. 10, of prosperous and unscrupu- 
lous wicked men, and their bidding adieu to God with the conviction 
that there is no profit in serving him (21:14 f.; 22:17) is moral reckless- 
ness and not speculative atheism. Friedlander finds the key to all these 
passages in Ben-Sira 3:17-25, in which men are warned not to seek things 
too high and too hard for them, not to occupy themselves with mysteries. 
In vs. 19 (found in &°**, but not in B) the Greek has μυστήρια, and the 
Heb. 70 rai) psp) ; in vs, 22: ob yap ἐστίν σοι χρεία τῶν κρυπτῶν; 
minnoi2 poy ae rae The meaning of these Hebrew terms is fixed 
in Old Testament usage (which Ben-Sira, as a rule, follows): 34D, used 
of God, in his intimate, friendly association, which involves his favor 


24 A reference in the Psalter to the Essenes is not probable; for, whatever their creed, 
they were not atheistical, and were in general loyal to the Jewish faith. 


CRAWFORD HoweELu Toy 29 


(Job 29:4f.; Ps. 25:14; Prov. 3:32); MIMO. are his secret designs as 
contrasted with his announced commands (Deut. 29:28; ef. Prov. 25:2). 
His “secret” is revealed to the pious (vs. 19); as to the hidden things 
not revealed by God, it is well not to concern one’s self with them, but 
(vs. 22) to do what is commanded. The author appears to be dealing 
with conduct, not with creed—he concludes the paragraph with a refer- 
ence to the sorrows of a stubborn spirit. Since these verses inculcate 
humble obedience, the adjoining verses are probably to be interpreted 
in accordance with this sense. Vss. 23 f.: “do not concern yourself with 
what is beyond you—you have been shown what is too great for you [or 
what is above human understanding, or (Friedlander) too many matters 
of human wisdom]—many men are led astray by their own vain opin- 
ions,” may, certainly, be supposed to refer to some sort of non-Jewish 
theosophic doctrine; but it is equally possible (as also the context sug- 
gests) to see in them a reference to an emancipated point of view that led 
a Jew to discard his national customs and adopt foreign ways and ideas. 
Among these (as was the case in the Greek period) may well have been 
some philosophical notions concerning the divine—not atheistic or eso- 
teric—but freer than Jewish orthodoxy permitted, and also customs 
repugnant to Jewish conservative ideas of decency. But, whatever for- 
eign conceptions may be alluded to in this passage, it is not permissible 
to deduce from it a definition of the yw in general, and particularly 
it is not permissible to carry over such a definition into the Psalter in 
the face of the evidence in the psalms themselves. There the ὩΣ ἢ 
are regarded simply as the social or political enemies of the true Jewish 
people or of individual p"t"oOM. 


§ 4 

The well-accredited native Israelite myths of the Old Testament 
(excluding the demons, deities, and heroes of the popular faith) are 
all genealogical, and are regarded by the Old Testament writers 
as representing real historical persons and events. Jacob and his 
sons are as real to the psalmist as Moses and David, and belong 
to the current construction of the national history. The same 
thing is true of the foreign myths in Gen., chaps. 1-11; these 
were sanctioned by long-established opinion, and have become 
thoroughly Hebraized. The case may be supposed to be different 
with the dragon figures Rahab and Leviathan that appear in Job 
and Isaiah and in the Psalter (74:13 f.; 89:11, and possibly 
104:26). These came in comparatively late (they do not appear 
before the sixth century”) and differ from the native mythical 


25 See note 12, p. 33. 


80 ΞΟΜῈ CONCEPTIONS OF THE PSALTER 


figures in being cosmogonic. It is, perhaps, not possible to deter- 
mine whether or not they are regarded by the psalmists as histori- 
cally real. It is possible that they are employed in the way of 
literary allusion, as Ezek. 32:2 may perhaps be understood. Yet 
the way in which they are introduced makes on the reader the 
impression that they are considered as historical. In Ps. 74, for 
example (where the context shows that the reference is not to the 
exodus but to a cosmogonic event), the crushing of dragons (and 
leviathan) is spoken of along with the establishment of day and 
night and the seasons as the work of God, and in 89:11 the break- 
ing-up of Rahab is put in the same category with the creation of 
heaven and earth. Nor is there anything in the Hebrew thought 
of the time to make a realistic conception of such events by the 
psalmists improbable. The mysterious remote past offered room 
for strange beings and histories, no natural history of creation 
was known, and the best current view of Yahweh did not exclude 
other powers in the extra-human world. Probably the psalmists 
held the cosmogonic dragons to be a part of the history of the 
beginning of things, and wove them into their conception of the 
activity of the God of Israel. They are introduced simply to 
illustrate his power: they were his enemies and he destroyed them. 
No moral quality is ascribed to them, and there is no symbolic 
interpretation of the stories nor any recognition of their poetical 
character. They are treated baldly as historical facts, and have 
no moral or religious or poetic value. In Ps. 91:6 (and _ pos- 
sibly in vs. 5) there seems to be reference to demons of darkness 
and noon; it is not clear whether these are native, but, native or 
foreign, they belong to the lower stratum of religious conceptions, 
and have nothing to do with the essential thought of the psalm. 
The same thing is true of the reference, in 121:6, to the hurtful 
power of the moon; or the writer may have in mind, not demons, 
but merely a supposed fact of hygienic experience. In 19:5, where 
the sun is compared toa bridegroom and an athlete, it is hardly 
necessary to see an allusion to the sun-god; the comparison may 
well be a bit of poetical imagery. 

Foreign deities are recognized in the Psalter as existing, and 
are variously treated. So far as regards idols (D°AXY), these 


CrawFrorp HoweELu Toy Bik 


are ridiculed (115:4—8; 135:15-18) in the vein of Isa. 40:18 f.; 
41:6f.;44:9-17 (cf. the different tone in Hab. 2:18f.). The gods 
also in a couple of passages (96:5; 97:7) are contemptuously dis- 
missed as worthless (075758), incapable of helping their wor- 
shipers; in 97:7, while the parallelism appears to identify the 
ὈΠῸΝ with 50D, they seem also to be spoken of as DTN.” In 
general in the Psalter, as in the prophets, a distinction is made 
between gods and their images; the latter are treated as obviously 
absurd, the former are regarded as beings to be reckoned with. 
Part of the glory ascribed to Yahweh is his superiority to other 
deities (86:8; 95:3; 96:4; 97:9; 136:2, and probably 113:4 by 
emending O73 into D'T>8—the emendation is suggested by the 
context: “his glory is above the heavens,” and “who [that is, 
among the gods | is like to Yahweh?” as well as by the similarity 
in form to 97:7—probably an editor thought it desirable to bring 
the idea down to the sphere of visible and practical relations, as 
in 96:7 OM MIMEw' has been substituted for the DON “22 
of 29:1). The same conception of Yahweh’s superiority to other 
gods is found in Ex. 15:11; Mic. 7:18; Isa, 41:21-24; 43:9; in 
these passages his superiority is demonstrated by his great deeds, 
in the psalms it is taken for granted. The gods, however, are 
believed to exist and to form part of a great extra-human society. 
They are exhorted or declared to worship Yahweh (97:7, if the 
text be correct )—a noteworthy conception of governmental unity 
in the divine world, to be compared with the prediction (Isa. 
24:21 ff.) that Yahweh will punish the hostile heavenly Powers, 
and with the references, cited above, to his dealing with the great 
dragon beings. This demand for unity in the universe is a step 
toward monotheism, and 97:7 seems even to contain the idea of 
unity of thought, a conversion of the gods to right religious prac- 
tice, a sort of ἀποκατάστασις on the largest scale. Hlsewhere in 
the Psalter foreign gods appear to be brought into intimate social 
relations with men. In 58:2 (reading DDN for the DSR” of the 

26 Cf. Sab. SX'5N referred to in the BDB lexicon, and Professor A. T. Clay’s suggestion 
(American Journal of Semitic Languages, XXIII, 269 ff.) that the Hebrew word may be the 


Babylonian bby (5 85»), the name of the god οἵ Nippur. 


27 The word is by some deleted, but the metre calls for a word here. Others point DON 
(Sept. dpa), but such an adversative term seems not in place here. On the other hand, the 


ao SoME CONCEPTIONS OF THE PSALTER 


Masoretic text) they are unjust judges of men, dealing out vio- 
lence on the earth. Psalm 82 givesa definite picture of a heavenly 
assembly —a judicial inquiry into the administration of human 
affairs. God (that is, the God of Israel) presides—around or 
before him stand the inferior deities, each of whom has his func- 
tion as divine head of some non-Jewish people (so it may be 
inferred from vs. 8). These are charged with injustice, and are 
to be punished—though they are in truth DYDR, Wy da, 
they must die like men. This picture of the government of the 
world —‘“‘divine” judges who are to be put to death by the Supreme 
Judge—has given rise to doubts as to the text and the meaning. 
It is proposed to read pyON wa (cr yy "32, 82:7) instead 
of ΤΟΝ and ON; but in that case the expression must be 
understood in a sense different from that of the earlier books, and 
the beings referred to must be identifiable with the gentile deities 
who were supposed to be subject to death (82:8). Itis held by 
some scholars that the title BYI5N is sometimes given in the Old 
Testament in a serious sense to men, but the passages cited for 
this view do not support it: in Ex, 21:6 the context shows that it 
is the household god to whose image or shrine the slave is brought 
(Sept.: πρὸς τὸ κριτήριον τοῦ Oeod); in Ex. 22:7, 8, two cases are 
mentioned in which, the ordinary judges not being able to decide 
(and to them other cases are tacitly referred in the code), the 
matter is left to God (to be settled by oath or by the sacred lot 
or in some similar way —cf. Num. 5:21, 1 Sam. 2:25); Ex. 22:27 
distinguishes between DYTDN (Sept. θεοὺς) and the human Nw 

(cursing a god was not uncommon, see I Sam. 3:13, Sept., I Kings 
21:10, Isa. 8:21, Job 1:5; 2:9, Lev. 24:15); the text of Judg. 
5:8 is doubtful, and in any case there is no good ground for ren- 
dering pbs ' judges;’ the Sept. in Ps. 138:1 has ἀγγέλων, 
which is an incorrect translation, but shows that the translators 
did not think of men in the connection (so in Ps. 8:6 ἀγγέλους 
for O'TDN). It may be assumed that there is no authority from 
usage for taking D'TDN (or O78) in a serious sense as ‘judges’ 
or ‘rulers,’ whether native or foreign. Some critics, however, 


reading py, =‘gods,’ is favored by the apparent contrast with the ΠΝ 735 at the 
end of the verse; and the rendering ‘mighty ones’ (~rulers) is less probable. 
28 See note 13, p. 34. 


CRAWFORD HoweELu Toy 33 


suppose that the title may be given to men sarcastically. Ewald 
(followed by Olshausen) thinks the reference in Pss. 58, 82 is to 
gentile judges whom the poet calls ‘‘gods” after the gentile 
fashion, but in his own sarcastic sense; Duhm sees in the pas- 
sages an attack on the proud Hasmonean priest-princes whom 
their hellenizing flatterers may have affected to consider divine. 
The objection to this interpretation (in addition to what is said 
above) is that the text gives no hint of sarcasm—the tone of 58 
and 82 is serious (82 is so taken in John 10:34 f.), and the 
expression, “1 say, ye are gods,” can hardly be understood to be 
employed derisively. However strange this recognition of foreign 
deities may appear, the Old Testament usage seems decisive for 
the interpretation of the ΤΟΝ and ὈΠῸΝ of the two psalms 
in question as gentile gods, treated as unjust (because their people 
are suffering) and as mortal. The conception that every people 
has its own god to whom it looks for protection, appears in 
the older books (Judg. 11:24; cf. I Sam. 26:19) in crude form; 
in the psalms above cited the gods belong to an organized body, 
and take part in human life in a modern human way. The variety 
of views expressed in the Psalter respecting gentile deities indi- 
cates that the Jews of the later period were much exercised about 
these beings; it was impossible to deny their existence, and the 
only course left for pious thought was to weave them into the 
recognized scheme of the divine government of the world, under 
the headship of Yahweh. The same method had already been 
adopted in the treatment of the old divine beings who appear in 
the Old Testament as angels, seraphs, cherubs, and sons of the 
Elohim. To the psalmists, as to Socrates, the conception of the 
co-existence of the supreme God and the subordinate gods seems 
not to have been a difficult one; and while it rendered their mono- 
theism theoretically impure, left it practically intact. 


NOTES 
Nore 12. Otp Testament DraGons 


The earliest definite mentions in the Old Testament of the mythical 
dragon are found in Isa. 51:9; 27:1; Am. 9:3; Job 7:12; the reference in 
Ezek. 29:3; 32:2 (where read 120) is doubtful, but the context rather 
points to the crocodile, a sacred and distinctive animal, which the prophet 


84 Some CoNCEPTIONS OF THE PSALTER 


names as the symbol of Egypt. As the cosmogonic figures are doubtless 
of Babylonian origin, and taken from the Babylonian cosmogonic poems 
or current beliefs, it seems probable that the history of creation therein 
contained was accepted by certain Israelite writers so far as was com- 
patible with their conception of Yahweh as creator and supreme ruler. 
If so, these figures represent the earliest form of the Jewish idea of 
intermediate agencies between God and the world—an idea destined to 
be developed in a very fruitful way. The intermediate agency in this 
case would be hostile, and the conception of its activity would be crude, 
but it would contain the notion that other powers besides Yahweh were 
concerned in the formation of the world. Such a conception would not 
impair seriously the practical Jewish monocratic faith (which never was 
absolute monotheism), but it would give a certain richness to the idea of 


ae Nore 13. Tae DYN ἢ 

It appears from Ben-Sira 17:17 and Dan. 10:20f. that in the second 
century B. 0. the opinion existed among the Jews that beings of the 
pbx "3 class presided over gentile peoples. According to the Sept. 
text of Deut. 32:8, the Most High assigned the nations their territories 
κατὰ ἀριθμὸν ἀγγέλων θεοῦ, the Heb. being ὌΝ 55 "52 p05 (Sept. read 
Ὦς 2). Ben-Sira, citing Deut. 32:8, writes ἑκάστῳ ἔθνει κατέστησεν 
ἡγούμενον (unfortunately the Heb. of this verse of Ben-Sira has not yet 
been found), apparently interpreting the Sept. expression in a general 
way in the sense that appears in Daniel where the ΠΣ of Israel (Michael) 
is in the same category with the Ow of Persia and Greece. The two 
passages, however, differ greatly. The Ow of Daniel are neither 
angels nor demons in the ordinary senses of these terms —they are celes- 
tial princes who manage the affairs of the world, each in the interest of 
his nation, Yahweh apparently leaving things in their hands; the struggle 
is between Michael and Gabriel on the one side, and the princes of Persia 
and Greece on the other. These latter figures appear to be developments 
of the Satan of Zech., chap. 3, the adversary of Israel, under the influ- 
ence of the Persian dualistic scheme, and Michael and Gabriel are indi- 
viduals formed on the model of the D'7T5x "32. Ben-Sira has nothing of 
this elaborate organization of the celestial world, only a simple ἡγούμενος 
for each nation. The p 5x of Ps. 82 are very different figures from 
the O™w of Daniel: they are not celestial magnates conducting inter- 
national affairs, but quiet divine rulers whose function it is to attend each 
to the well-being of his own people. The difference between them and 
the figures of Gen., chap. 6, Isa., chap. 6, and Job, chap. 1, is obvious. 
The psalmist’s conception of the realness but inferiority of foreign gods 
appears to be expressed in Dan. 3:18, and a similar view is ascribed 
to the king (3:28 f.). The persistence of such opinions centuries later 
(I Cor. 10:19 ff.) makes the representations in the Psalter intelligible. 


THEOPHOROUS PROPER NAMES IN THE 
OLD TESTAMENT 


HENRY PRESERVED SMITH 


Ἢ ποῦ oe | 


Beek ot) ; 


: OR ccc 
Ae let a μρῆν τῷ ees i tay ᾿ ; ᾿ 
eno τὶς ιν | he δ δον! ba oh Ot Re Μὴ ἊΣ 
πο ως Ὁ στο νυ: ek 
ae ᾿ εὐ ἐτὸ mn a eh afta ιν ν ἜΛΑ are 
_ δ᾽ Vaan): ἀκ oe ΕΒ ip ΟΥΤΩΣ Waite 2 oe 4. “Py - 
BOTs ον EY AES ee A ae Oe ee 
his RON wkd Te ve? TURAL eS 0 ie ee iad ad 
νον 


Ψ Φ ὃ 4 6η: i 0) - 4 a ee εχ τυ" as evel ᾿ ot ὺ > " ‘ Fees é 


" 
ν᾿ 


ΟΝ 


Ὁ ᾿ " L Fit: ἯΙ array ¥ a ROT ee ΠΥ 
Ἂν γα ἀν». Leaks ΠΗ] Mase 


7 ,. 7 er 
} = = 7 ᾿ ; ᾿ . i 
wi Ms * ; Line ᾿ = 2 
apes _ 7 ae ΤΥ ᾿ ῤάνρείνς Δ ey: 
ΓΝ ᾿ - κα ω ᾿ ᾿ 3 a > Μ 
ae “7 ν᾿, _ i : ἢ : ἣ 
a ᾿ Η͂ ᾿ . 
wir i 
i ; ( 3 
< 7 4 et 
τ i ᾿ 
ΕΝ ᾿ 
ἬΝ ; : οὖ 
> "ἢ i =i) Ν a “a a 
{ Η —- Saget 
Tie 7. τ τὸ 
Ξ ai 
Ὰ . Ϊ a Sai 2 pi ae 
᾿ μϑ bet: 
ν᾽. ES we ἢ 
| ᾿ Ξ σοι 
σὰ μέν λα ar — tue wer 
_ ῳ ἀὲ 11 ν 4 
mi 4 . ta ᾿ ον - 2317 
| : an 
1h πο ᾿ με δὲ " δ «(ἱ τ ny »¥ 
τς ᾿ = a = pins —_—~ i~ a 4. 
= 2 7 eee ct 
᾿ Ν ᾿ Ν 7 Ε ως « hers ® 
».: ος ΝΕ Oe ae ei pe ts _ ain oy. Ber 7 


na! Ca ᾿ i ἢ, 2 ip «ἀφ δ] eae νῶν = ἢ πον, aa εὐ 
= ee en Me ee 


4 4 a= » - 


2% Ἰ ιν" ᾿ ᾿ ; - ΤΟΝ ᾿ ; A .Ν 
: ΟΝ i = ee cm 
= a “a 7 be Ὁ ᾿ ᾿ ᾿ "ὦ πον 4 = _ 


THEOPHOROUS PROPER NAMES IN THE OLD 
TESTAMENT 


Henry PRESERVED SMITH 


The object of the present paper is to register the traces of 
Semitic polytheism found in the proper names of the Old Testa- 
ment. The various treatises on Hebrew proper names published 
within the last thirty’ years seem not to have considered all the 
phenomena. They all recognize, indeed, the fact that the Hebrews, 
like other peoples, used the names of their divinities in proper 
names of men and places. So far as the use of the names of Israel’s 
God is concerned, the fact can hardly escape the notice of even 
the casual reader. But that the names of other divinities were so 
used is not generally admitted. Gray finds “no satisfactory proof 
that other gods shared with Yahweh the feelings of gratitude and 
devotion which so frequently guided a Hebrew parent in the choice 
of his children’s names,” and Baethgen denies that Hebrew per- 
sonal names contain the name of other divinities than Israel’s own 
God.’ If this were so, it would be very strange, for monotheism 
did not prevail in Israel before the fall of Jerusalem in 586. Of 
this we are assured by Jeremiah, who tells us that the gods of 
Judah were in his day as many as the cities. This testimony is 
confirmed by Ezekiel, who in an impressive passage describes the 
idolatry which was carried on in the temple itself and by the 
leading men of the nation. 

1Nestle, Die israelitischen Eigennamen. Haarlem, 1876. 

De Jong, Over de met Ab, Ach enz. zamengestelde Hebreeuwsche Eigennamen. (Vers- 
lagen en Mededeelingen der Koninklijke Akademie van Wetenschappen.) Amsterdam, 1881. 

Baethgen, Beitrdge zur semitischen Religionsgeschichte. Berlin, 1888. 

Grunwald, Die Eigennamen des Alten Testamentes in thre Bedeutung fiir die Kennt- 
niss des hebrdiischen Volksglaubens. Breslau, 1895. 

Gray, Studies in Hebrew Proper Names. London, 1896. 

Kerber, Die religionsgeschichtliche Bedeutung der hebrdischen Eigennamen des Alten 
Testamentes. Freiburg, 1897. 

Ulmer, Die semitischen Eigennamen im Alten Testament. Leipzig, 1901. 


For the Phoenician and Aramaic parallels I have relied on the Corpus Inscriptionum 
Semiticarum, and on Cook, Handbook of North-Semitic Inscriptions, 


2Gray, p. 148; Baethgen, p. 140. 
37 


88 THEOPHOROUS PROPER NAMES IN OLD TESTAMENT 


Moreover, we are now tolerably sure that the Israel of historic 
times was largely made up of Canaanitish elements; and one of 
the most persistent charges brought by the Old Testament writers 
against their own people is that they have repeatedly been led 
away into the worship of Canaanitish divinities. Specifications 
are indeed lacking; beyond the general statement that they went 
after the Baals and the Astartes we find no names of these gods 
recorded by the historians. These men, looking back on a time 
of defection, as they regarded it, took no pleasure in dwelling 
upon facts abhorrent to them. So far as was possible, they 
ignored the uncomfortable details. It is only incidentally that 
we learn of Teraphim in the house of David; and it is only 
because a late author is obliged to prohibit the worship of the 
desert demons that he mentions them at all. By a curious sur- 
vival in the ritual we learn that one of these divinities was named 
Azazel, but he is the only one known to us by direct assertion. 
The meagerness of direct evidence makes us scrutinize the indirect 
evidence with all the greater care. 

The precarious nature of much of the evidence with which we 
have to deal is acknowledged at the start. The majority of the 
proper names contained in the Old Testament are recorded by late 
documents—the Priest Code and Chronicles. It seems that the 
tendency to preserve genealogies became strong after the exile, 
and there is too much ground for the suspicion that where genuine 
lists had not been preserved the lack was made up by invention. 
The information which these authors profess to give concerning 
the pre-exilic period is always to be viewed with caution, and this 
is as true of their genealogies as of any part of their work. On 
the other hand, it is probable that in some cases they drew upon 
a genuine tradition, and even where they invented lists they prob- 
ably made them up from names which were in circulation in their 
own time. But these names may have represented ancient and 
forgotten beliefs. The tenacity of proper names is well attested. 
The Christian of the sixth century of our era who bore the name 
Dusarios thereby witnessed to the ancestral worship of Dusares, 
though he himself had left the heathen community; and the 
Numidian bishop Asmunius in the same way bore testimony to 


HENRY PRESERVED SMITH 39 


Eshmun, though his ancestors for generations may have been 
followers of Christ.2 Because of this tenacity of tradition we 
have a right to examine all these proper names in the hope that 
they have preserved traces of older beliefs. 

A further difficulty is made by the faulty transmission of the 
texts. Carelessness in the handling of proper names is one of 
the besetting sins of copyists. Where the text consists of long 
series of names we can hardly be surprised that the average scribe 
does not take his task very seriously. The confusion which is 
likely to result is made visible to us by the Greek version —or 
versions —of the Old Testament, where each group of manuscripts 
seems to go its own way. For example, in Josh. 15:30 our Hebrew 
text has the name 5°05. The Greek copies give us no less than 
eight equivalents: Βαιθηλ, Χασειρ, Ειλ, Χειλ, Χασειδ, Χεηλ, Lever, 
and Βεχθηλ; not counting minor variations. Again, the name 
Ahilud, which occurs five times in the Bible, is represented by no 
less than fifteen Greek equivalents. Our perplexity is increased 
by the doubt how far the printed Greek editions accurately repro- 
duce the manuscript readings. It is evident that we are far from 
a final solution of all the problems thus presented to us, but with 
caution it is yet possible to make provisional use even of the Greek 
version. 

It was not only the carelessness of the scribes which disfigured 
their copies; they shared the prejudice of the original authors 
against all that savored of heathenism. This prejudice induced 
them sometimes to mutilate their text by the excision of a name 
which had escaped the zeal of the original writer. The classic 
example is the name of Saul’s son, Ishbaal. The second part of 
the name is that of a heathen divinity, and the copyist hesitated 
to write it, as the public reader did to pronounce it. The name 
was therefore changed to Ishbosheth (‘Man-of-shame’ ), or in one 
passage to Ishyo (‘Man-of-Yahweh’). Parallel is the substitution 
of Elyada for Baalyada in II Sam. 5:16 compared with I Chron. 
14:7. These familiar cases illustrate the two ways in which an 
offensive name might be treated; either Yahweh or one of its 
equivalents was substituted for that of the heathen divinity, or 


3 Baethgen, pp. 92, 141. 


40 THEOPHOROUS PROPER NAMES IN OLD TESTAMENT 


else the heathen element was replaced by something meaningless 
or opprobrious. So far as this process went on before the Greek 
version was made, we have no means of recovering the original. 
We have reason to suspect that it did go on for some time, for we 
have a number of proper names which are meaningless, and which 
are, moreover, un-Hebraic in structure. While we might expect 
occasionally to meet an unfamiliar root in a proper name, the 
cases of un-Hebraic forms always arouse suspicion. Conjecture 
as a method of restoring mutilated names is always unsatisfactory ; 
we can only note the difficulty and pass on. Where the name of 
Yahweh, or its synonym El, has taken the place of another and 
less orthodox one, we cannot even detect that mutilation has taken 
place. 

A few examples showing how mutilation was going on at the 
time the Greek version was made may here be given: Βεελσιμος 
for DIwa; Αβδοδομ, IAP; Αδωνειραμ, DAI or DAN; Αβααξερ, 
Taz; Βαιθσουρ, 58 m2; Ιασβηλ, ὌΝΤΙ; Ισβααλ, ANIw"; 
Μελχολ, 2. Ὦ ; Αβεισουρ, NITAN; Αχιεζερ, MIN; Αβεισαμας, 
yrw°an ; Ελιαβ, Syne ; Baad for SST? (I Chron. 9:39). In 
this list 6 seems to have preserved the original reading. In the 
following the advantage is on the side of the Hebrew: Poy. , 
Βαδαια; "DN, lef; STAN, Bacay; yam, Bayadinr ; S32, 
Ιωηλ (1 Chron. 5:5); px, Ovetiad. Without support from the 
Greek, but certain from internal evidence, is the curious instance 
where Dan has been exscinded from the text (I Chron. 7:12). 

Observation of these facts convinces us that only a small pro- 
portion of the theophorous names which once existed in the 
Hebrew writings have come down to us. It is rather remarkable 
that any escaped mutilation. That some did escape is due to two 
facts; for one thing the scribes did not always recognize a heathen 
name when they saw it, and for another the offensive meaning 
could be interpreted away. The name of the divinity Melek 
appears in some early names. But melek is the Hebrew word 
for king, and the proper name Ahimelek, for example, which 
originally meant (perhaps) ‘Brother-of-Melek,’ could be inter- 
preted ‘Brother-of-the-king,’ and so pass muster. Even names 
in which the god was recognized might have a new meaning put 


HENRY PRESERVED SMITH 41 


into the other element, and so be considered innocuous. Jerub- 
baal, one of the early heroes, had a name compounded with that 
of Baal. It was allowed to pass because, whatever the original 
meaning, it could be interpreted as “‘Fighter-against-Baal.” These 
considerations make it intelligible that our text has reconciled 
itself to some names which a consistent Judaism could hardly 
approve if it understood them in their original sense. 

Hebrew names, so far as we can understand them at all, fall 
into three classes; they are single nouns (substantive, adjective, 
or participial), or a combination of two nouns, or a combination of 
noun and verb. The few cases where we find a verb alone are 
probably abbreviated from longer forms containing a verb and a 
noun. The class easiest to understand is the one in which a verb 
and a noun are combined. They are intended to utter a declara- 
tion, prayer, or prophecy concerning the individual who receives 
the name. The declaration may affirm the divine protection 
already afforded the child in the perils of the birth-process, or it 
may express the parent’s gratitude at having the gift of a child. 
In this case the perfect tense of the verb is the one naturally 
used; Nethaniah is the one whom ‘Yahweh-has-given’ to the 
parents, and the name is equivalent to the nominal phrase Mattan- 
iah (‘Gift-of-Yahweh’). Where a prayer is expressed the verb 
is in the other tense; for example, Ezekiel meaning ‘May-E]l- 
strengthen-him.’ In the most of these names the verb precedes 
the noun, though the order is sometimes reversed. 

The subject in these sentences is usually the name of a divinity. 
As has already been intimated, the great majority of them show 
us the name of Israel’s God—either his proper name, Yahweh, or 
El, which was regarded as an appellative practically equivalent 
to Yahweh. Curiously, the word Elohim—the common word for 
‘God’ in Hebrew —does not appear in proper names. What now 
concerns us is that, if we find another noun than El or Yahweh 
(in its shortened forms Yahu or Yah) the subject in one of these 
proper names, all the probabilities are in favor of its being the 
name of a divinity. Notice the exactness of the parallel in the 
following cases: Elyada‘ and Baalyada’, Hashabyah and Hashab- 
dan; ὈΝΓΤΊΒ,, TB, and “NETTIE; DNIMD, ΓΤ, and F2723M3 ; 


42 THEOPHOROUS PROPER NAMES IN OLD TESTAMENT 


raw" and pyaw’; Faw" and ANIw"; FON and FovIN; 
ppt and Op Ty; Op SN and OP IN. 

It would be hasty to conclude on the grounds of these analo- 
gies that we have discovered the names of seven members of the 
Hebrew pantheon, to wit: Dan, Cur, Am, Baal, Ezer, Adon, and 
Ab. Yet there would be prima facie evidence in their favor; and 
if we can discover other phenomena which point in the same 
direction, we shall make out as strong a case as the nature of the 
inquiry admits. The first thing we shall have to consider is the 
assertion, which will undoubtedly be made, to the effect that none 
of these are proper names, but that all are appellatives; Ab and 
Am designate kinsmen; Melek, Adon, and Baal mean ‘ruler;’ 
and the others also are known to us. The question, however, is 
not whether the names had a meaning, but whether in the minds 
of those who used them they were not nevertheless personified as 
divinities. All divine names had a meaning when first applied to 
personal use, and Semitic divinities certainly form no exception 
to the rule. Adon admittedly meant ‘lord,’ and was used in 
Hebrew with this meaning throughout the history of the language, 
but it passed to the Greeks as the name of a particular divinity, 
and we naturally suppose that it was so used by the Phoenicians. 

So it was also in the case of Baal, another name meaning ‘master’ 
or ‘possessor,’ which could be applied to any of the local divini- 
ties in Palestine. In some cases it was doubtless used for Yahweh 
himself. But in the early days the identification was not com- 
plete. The assumption that when used in the families of Saul 
and David it must be construed as one of the names of Yahweh 
is based on the belief that these kings were exclusive worshipers 
of Yahweh, Israel’s one God. But this belief is based on the 
. views of later times. There seems to be no sufficient reason why 
we should not judge the Hebrew Baalyada‘ just as we should judge 
the similar forms Baalshillek and Baalshaphat which we find 
among the Phoenicians. All the others in our list, except Dan, 
may be paralleled from the Phoenician or Aramaic: Ab in M>wWaN; 
Ezer in “7972; Melek in yaaa ; Cur in "872; Am in DDN. 
No one would have the hardihood to deny that to the Phoeni- 
cians these were the names of so many separate divinities. And 


HENRY PRESERVED SMITH 43 


if they were separate outside of Israel, they were originally sep- 
arate within Israel. Of Melek we are quite sure that he had 
altars and sacrifices in Judah down to a comparatively late period. 

Ab and Am undoubtedly present some difficulties whichever 
way we look at them. It is clear that in all the languages we 
are now studying a child may receive a name describing him as 
servant, dependent, or kinsman of the god. Compounds with 
Jay (‘servant’) are not very frequent in the Old Testament, and 
“2 (‘client’) occurs in only one or two cases, and they not certain. 
All the more conspicuous are those which denote a kinsman. 
Ahijah, for example, makes the bearer of the name a brother of 
his god, and this whether we translate ‘Yahweh-is-my-brother’ 
or ‘Brother-of-Yahweh.’ If we must choose between the two, the 
latter seems more probable, for what we look for in a name is 
something which will describe the man or child—a label. A 
profession of faith or a declaration concerning the nature of the 
divinity is not the most natural thing to put into a proper name, 
at least in the earlier stages of religion. Ahijah, then, meaning 
‘Brother-of-Yahweh,’ is quite comprehensible. But names with 
Ab (‘father’) are not so easily disposed of. The wide sense in 
which the word ‘father’ is used among the Semites is well known, 
but with all possible allowance for this it hardly seems that a 
child could be named ‘Father-of-Yahweh’ or ‘Father-of-Baal.’ 
Yet the names Abijah and Abibaal occur, one among the 
Hebrews, the other among the Phoenicians. The difficulty is 
increased when we discover that the Phoenician name is that of a 
woman, and in connection with this we are at once reminded that 
names of this type were given to women among the Hebrews 
also— Abigail, Abishag, and others. In view of these names, 
and also in view of the names in which Ab appears as the subject 
of a verb—Mm>wW2N in Phoenician, FONAN, IVAN, INAw" in 
Hebrew—we are driven to the hypothesis already intimated — 
the hypothesis that Ab was an ancient Semitic divinity.‘ 

To understand how this may be, we need only to remind our- 
selves of the ease with which gods come into existence in the 
belief of a polytheistic society. In Babylonia, we are told, the 


4This has aiready been pointed out by Barton (JBL, XV, 182) and by others. 


44 THEOPHOROUS PROPER NAMES IN OLD TESTAMENT 


abstractions kettu, ‘right,’ and meSaru, ‘righteousness,’ became 
divinities. In Phoenicia the ‘Face-of-Baal’ was separated from 
Baal himself and was identified with another deity. Adar the 
Glorious, Aziz the Mighty, became personalities. Baal, Adon, 
and Melek, to which allusion has already been made, are further 
examples. It cannot surprise us, therefore, that names originally 
designating kinsmen early became personalized as so many gods. 
In clan-society the god is member of the clan—father or brother of 
all its human members. To designate him by the name ‘Father’ 
was all that was necessary to identify him as the particular person 
with whom the clan had most intimate relations. Among the 
Midianites we find Abyada‘, just as among the Hebrews we have 
Baalyada‘ or Elyada‘, and among the Phoenicians Eshmunyada’. 
Abyada‘ and Yada‘-Ab are also found in South Arabia. The 
names must all be judged alike. 

If Ab is a divine name, it relieves us of the difficulty under 
which we have been laboring. Abbaal is neither ‘Father-of-Baal’ 
nor ‘Baal-is-my-father;’ it is simply Ab-Baal, one of the many 
compound names of divinities found among the Semites. How 
it came to be applied to a human being is part of a larger ques- 
tion which we shall have toconsider. For the present we note that 
Ab was in the minds of those who gave these names a personality 
like the other gods. And what is true of Ab is also true of Am 
(originally uncle or kinsman in the broad sense). The case of 
Ab is not so clear.° 

We return now to the puzzling fact that a girl received the 
name of a male divinity. It becomes less puzzling when we bring 
it into the general class of divine names given to human beings. 
That there is such a class is obvious—however startling to 
modern ideas. To ancient religious thinking it probably was not 
startling at all. The name was designed to put the child under 
the protection of a divinity. What could be a more effective way 
than to give him the name of the divinity? Just as in Christian 


5So conservative an authority as Gray holds it to be proven that Am had virtually 
become a proper name (of a god) among peoples somewhat remote from Palestine, though 
he thinks there is no direct evidence from Palestine itself (Hebrew Proper Names, p. 53). 
Delaporte finds one case in Assyrian where he is compelled to make Ah a proper name, 
See his essay, ‘‘Noms théophores en Assyrie,’’ RHR, LIV, 60. Jastrow also finds cases 
where Ah is a divine name (Religion Babyloniens und Assyriens, I [1905], 162, n. 1). 


HENRY PRESERVED SMITH 45 


countries the child is assigned to the care of a patron saint and 
receives that saint’s name (even that of Jesus in some countries), 
so in ancient times it could not have seemed an unnatural thing 
to indicate or induce the protection of the god by giving the god’s 
name. The gods in polytheistic religions are much closer to men 
than in the monotheistic faiths where the one God is so grand, 
and therefore so far away. It is far from unthinkable, then, that 
a child should be called directly by the name of his patron deity. 
Of the custom we have evidence in many regions. In the Book 
of the Dead the soul is instructed to call itself by the name of Ra, 
or Ptah, or Osiris. This, to be sure, is when the soul has passed 
into the region of the dead, and may be supposed to partake of 
the divine nature. But the fact that one is to become a god after 
death would rather favor the idea of assuming something of divinity 
even in this life. The deification of human monarchs in their 
earthly life is a common phenomenon, and the ease with which 
the kings claim divine parentage shows how loosely drawn was 
the line between men and gods. 

Moreover, we have direct evidence as to the custom among the 
nearest neighbors of the Hebrews. The following examples from 
the Phoenician and Aramaic inscriptions would seem to be 
decisive: WN is the name of a man and also that of a god, as is 
seen from ὉΠ ὩΣ ; compare also M7 and ΠΩΣ ; dx” is the 
name of a man and also appears in the combination S9p5x" indi- 
cating a divinity;° in this same connection belong the Arabian 
King Ya’lu mentioned in the Assyrian inscriptions, the Hebrew 
5x1, and the Arabic divinity W#il; sigs yi sonsda, ΡΞ ΞΕ; 
all of which we should take to be divinities, are found as personal 
names in the inscriptions, and from Palmyra we may add 
nba, qbabya, and 7Daptx; from the name “2072729 we gather 
that "207 is the name of a divinity, but it appears also as that 
of a man;’ N23) (of a man) in the inscriptions is apparently the 
god Nebo; Wy is given by Furst as a man’s name; NOMS, the 
Egyptian Ptah, is the name of a man; PIX Συδυκ, Συδυκος, is 
Phoenician and also South Arabian for man and divinity; with 
(PS in {BETSY compare Spare (this a woman’s name); further, 


6 Cook, p. 106, 7 Cook, p. 42. 


406 THEOPHOROUS PROPER NAMES IN OLD TESTAMENT 


p>wiawre, odwias, now, ὉΣΞΎΣ, ΣΦ, ἼΩΟΣΞ,, SPAIN, ODP2, 
Sai, TINIAN , ἽΠΠΟΝ , names of men, all have claims to be 
considered here, though their full force cannot be estimated until 
we have studied the compound names of divinities. “MY, how- 
ever, as the name of a man in Palmyra, would seem to belong in 
our list, and the Arabic divinity Wadd gives his name to a man 
in the Sinaitic region. In Palmyra Aziz is a man and also a 
god,* while among the Nabateans Obodath designates both man 
and divinity.’ 

It does not seem rash, therefore, in view of all the facts, to 
assert that names of the gods were given to men among the 
Semites. For the Hebrews we may cite David’s court seer who 
bore the name Gad, undoubtedly that of a Syrian divinity (Isa. 
65:11). In the Hebrew lists we even find men called by the 
name of Baal (I Chron. 5:5; 8:30). The precarious nature of 
the attestation has already been indicated; yet we can hardly 
suppose the Chronicler or his copyist to have inserted so obnox- 
ious a name without some tradition to go upon. The giving of 
similar names must have been a custom well known when these 
texts took shape. If we include among proper names those borne 
by tribes, clans, or families, we shall find a number which are 
those of divinities. Asher, Dan, and Simeon are tolerably clear 
examples, as anyone will see. 

We have been considering the theory that the names of the 
gods are given directly to children as talismans to protect them 
from evil or misfortune, and the Christian custom of naming for 
the saints suggests that this is a natural thing for the devout man 
to do at a certain stage of religious thought. The phenomena of 
totemism come in to strengthen this hypothesis. A large number 
of proper names in the Old Testament are the names of animals. 
It is often said that a child is called by such a name because the 
father hopes that it will show the traits of the animal—the cun- 
ning of the fox or the courage of the lion. But in the stage of 

8 Cook, pp. 282, 295. 

9Meyersham, Deorum nomina hominibus imposita (Kiel, 1891), treats this subject at 
length, and Nestle gives a number of names of Greek gods borne by men, op. cit., p. 115, n. 1. 

Ranke, while minimizing the number of divine names borne by men among the Baby- 


lonians, concedes that there are some instances, See his Personennamen in den Urkunden 
der Hammurabidynastie, p. 23, n. 2. 


HENRY PRESERVED SMITH 47 


polydemonism these very qualities are taken to be signs of super- 
natural beings, and the dedication of the child to the animal is a 
religious act by which the parent seeks divine aid in the manifold 
perils of life. The persistence of the names of ‘unclean’ animals 
among personal names can be explained only on the basis of some 
such belief—a survival, no doubt, from an earlier stage, yet a 
testimony to a lingering veneration for the uncanny powers which 
dwell in animal forms. The priestly clan of the Boar, the section 
of Judah which bore the name of the Dog, the official who was 
called Mouse, the other called Rock-badger, all attest the feeling 
with which animals ritually unclean were regarded in Israel. In 
the popular consciousness the giving of such names would be in 
effect the giving of names of divinities.” 

There is, however, another hypothesis to be considered. It is 
supposable that all these forms have been abbreviated from fuller 
forms which designated the wearer of the name as servant or 
client of the god. In the case where the name of a male divinity 
is given to a woman this is, in fact, the most plausible hypothe- 
sis. It still remains true that the oriental mind might look at 
things in a way that would be foreign to our mode of thought. 
The giving of the name of a male divinity might be of a piece 
with the custom found in some regions—the custom of dressing 
a girl like a boy to protect her from the evil eye. Conceding that 
Abital (a woman’s name) meant originally ‘Father-of-the-night- 
mist,’ and that it designated the divinity (fay, cobold, or sprite) 
which presided over the beneficent dampness which does so much 
for the vegetation in Palestine, it is clear that a little girl might 
receive the name. On the other hand, it would be equally appro- 
priate to call her ‘Handmaid-of-Abital’—a cumbrous name, easily 
shortened by leaving off the first member. The practical effect of 
the abbreviation is to give the girl or woman the name of a male 
divinity. It is conceivable also that, while at first the names 
designated servants or clients of the gods, at a later stage the 


10Tt is not meant here to affirm that totemism as a system existed among the Israelites 
in historic times. The traces we have are survivals from prehistoric times. Nor have I 
thought it necessary to include in my table of names of divinities more than a few of the 
more noteworthy apimal names. A complete list of Hebrew animal names will be found in 
Jacobs, Studies in Hebrew Archaeology, pp. 94 ff., and a similar one in Gray, Hebrew Proper 
Names, pp. 88 ff. See also Cook’s interesting essay, “ israel and Totemism,” JQR, XIV, 413-455. 


48 THEOPHOROUS PROPER NAMES IN OLD TESTAMENT 


abbreviated names set the fashion, and the names of the gods 
were given to men without the formal recognition of dependence. 
As personal names were sometimes formed from those of a divinity 
by adding an adjective termination, there is the additional possi- 
bility that in some cases the termination was worn off, and so the 
name of the god was left in its simplicity." 

The next thing to claim our attention is the large number of 
compound divine names among the Semites. From very early 
times mixture of peoples in western Asia was constantly taking 
place. The result on their religions was syncretism. The god 
called Hadad, for example, worshiped in one region, was found 
to be essentially the same in character with the Ramman venerated 
in another district. The identity was indicated by joining the 
the two names in the form Hadad-Ramman—a name which sur- 
vived as a place-name down to a late period in Israel. In Egypt 
we know it to have been the rule rather than the exception to 
call a god by a double name. For Moab we have Mesha’s evi- 
dence in favor of Ashtar-Chemosh, while for Syria we may add 
to the examples given above the well-known Atargatis (Atar-Ate), 
and for Phoenicia Gad-El, Melek-Ashtart, and Eshmun-Melkart. 
In the works of the Assyriologists we read of Ilu-Malik, Ishtar- 
Malkat, Shamsi-Adad, Shamsi-Ramman, Ashur-Ramman, and 
others. In Palmyra we meet Melek-Bel. 

The composite divine names we meet in our Hebrew text seem 
to belong in the same class with those just considered. The 
Hebrew writers, to be sure, were not aware of the real origin of 
these names; to them they were names connected with ancient 
sanctuaries, and presumably given by the patriarchs; therefore 
names of Israel’s one God. But there is no essential difference 
between El-Elyon, El-Shaddai, El-Olam, Yahweh-Shalom, on the 
one hand, and Ashtar-Chemosh or Eshmun-Melkart, on the 
other. Yahweh-Elohim, indeed, is a purely literary product, 
while in El-Elohe-Israel we suspect that some other, less inno- 
cent, form has been displaced by the one in the text. What I 
now desire to emphasize is that these compound divine names 


11 Kerber calls attention to the fact that the name of a man (Anath, Judg. 3:31; 5:6) 
was that of a goddess. His own theory is that in all these cases the first part of the name 
has disappeared (loc. cit., p. 10). 


HENRY PRESERVED SMITH 49 


may be given to men as well as the simple names. They should 
be sought among the personal, and even among the geographical, 
designations. 

The preceding discussion justifies the following statement of 
probabilities: 

1. Where a personal or geographical name is a single noun, 
it may be the name of a divinity. If it be adjective or participial 
in form, it may be derived from the name of a divinity. 

2. Where a personal name or geographical name consists of 
two nouns, one of them is likely to be the name of a god, and 
both of them may be such names. 

3. Where a personal name consists of a noun and a verb, the 
noun is likely to be the name of a god. 

The subjoined list presents the amount of evidence on which 
we may decide whether the names it contains are those of divini- 
ties. For the sake of completeness it gives the Old Testament 
names recorded among peoples who were neighbors of Israel and 
who may be supposed to share the popular religious ideas of the 
Hebrews. The Massoretic punctuation has been disregarded. 

ΞΔ, already commented upon, is found in various combina- 
tions— XIN, TAN, FL DFaNs ΟΞ ; also in the names of 
women. Among the Phoenicians we find ποθῶν, San, dan ; 
the last two of women. For AN2w", I Chron. 24, 13, (5 gives 
us lecBaar. The name INN becomes intelligible if it be 
parallel to ἡ Τὶ. 

NIN, apparently a god, CJS, I, p. 444; with it we may com- 
pare 108, Ezra 8: 11. 

VN. With ΠΝ, OVIIN we may compare Phoenician 
SyaI0N, FINTIUN, WOWITR, TINA, all names of men. OPIN 
(Ezra 2:13 and elsewhere) shows the noun as subject of a verb. 

DIN, eponym of the Edomites, was recognized as a divinity 
in Israel, as is shown by the name of an officer of David, DUNT? . 
G has Αβδοδομ also for 71729, IL Chron. 34:20, and Εναδομ for 
pava, Josh. 13:27. The town Admah may receive its name 
from this god. In Phoenician we find DINTAY (CIS, I, p. 367). 

"IN, a Babylonian god combined with Melek, was the object 
of worship among the colonists in Samaria (II Kings 17:31). 


50 THEOPHOROUS PROPER NAMES IN OLD TESTAMENT 


In view of the fact, however, that we find place-names “78, 
“IN TEN, TIN MMO, DIN, it is probable that the cult was 
older. O77N, one of the officers of David, may be cited here, 
though the text in which his name occurs is not free from sus- 
picion. Phoenician names are WTINIDON, ὈΣΞΗΝ, ἜΝΟΣΣ, and 
“TNIM . 

“IN, meaning ‘light’ or ‘flame,’ would naturally be deified, 
as is the case in most religions. Notice "8, ὌΝΩΝ 4:0 RO Aes 
ἜΝ, and compare Phoenician srd2, ans (Cook, pp. 18, 
20). 

MN, meaning ‘brother,’ shows the tendency to become a divine 
name which we have noted in other nouns denoting kinship: 
Wem, BAN (Phoen. Dh), pom, and others. 

ὌΝ, now used as an appellative, was originally the name of a 
particular divinity, as we know from the Assyrian and Babylonian 
records. There is no reason why he may not have been wor- 
shiped in Canaan from the time of the early Babylonian occupa- 
tion of the country. The sacred trees, TDN and TOR, seem to 
derive their names from him. Common to Hebrew and Phoeni- 
cian are the names DYDN (DION), TIAN (SN), ONIN (SN 
and 5X237), possibly 573 (58°75). With the Hebrew >x°7™ 
we may compare Phoenician yRIT, and with Sx"729, Phoeni- 
cian DONTAP. South Arabian names with 58 are numerous. 

(Vas, king of Judah, seems to have been named for a well- 
known Egyptian god, and from him we can hardly separate 
David’s son 71778 (related to ἼΩΝ as jWWAW is to WW), and 
a clan or man in the genealogy of Judah, 1/8, I Chron. 4: 20. 

"CN, man or clan, may bear the name of the Egyptian Osiris, 
who meets us also in the Phoenician names “"CN72), sonson , 
and ‘J27270N . 

FON, a guild of singers, also found in JON"AN and in the 
Phoenician MDOX (a woman), may belong in our list. 

WN, the name of a tribe, is undoubtedly that of a divinity. 
Besides the place-name "WN we have DX3wWN, TON WN, and 
DNDN . Compare the Phoenician ΟΝ. The endeavor of 
the punctuators to disguise some of these names by pointing 
instead of % may be disregarded. The aSerah, or sacred pole, 


HENRY PRESERVED SMITH 51 


must originally have been the representative of a goddess, the 
female counterpart of Asher. The evidence of the Tell-el-Amarna 
tablets to this effect has often been dwelt upon. 

52, distinct from Baal and imported from Babylon, appears 
in S2wN, Ιασβηλ (for SNE, Gen. 46:24), Ιωβηλ (for 727, 
Judg. 9:26). The mountain ὌΞΟΣ may have been the ‘Heap- 
of-Baal,’ and if @ is right in reading Reubel for Reuben, the 
name of this patriarch should be mentioned here. Phoenician 
gives us Say-7", compounded with a passive participle as is 
SDuN7, as well as bnax, Ὁ, and other names. 

592 has already been commented upon. The name SyIWN 
is apparently the same as the Phoenician ΣΦ. G gives us 
Αβιβααλ for W259 "aN. Two men in the Hebrew genealogies 
bear the name Baal, just as two in the Phoenician inscriptions 
are called "592. Notice the significant combination ΤΈΣ, and 
reflect on the apparent innocence with which a king of Israel 
who himself bears a name compounded with that of Yahweh 
(Ahaziah) sends to consult the oracle of 2137 dyn (II Kings 
1:2-16). Various places bear the name Baal or the feminine 
Baalath (Baalah), and 6 adds to them 59277 (for "M22, I Chron. 
11:38). The large number of Phoenician names compounded 
with Baal need not be reproduced here. With the Hebrew 
Baalath-beer we may compare the Phoenician Baalath-Gebal, the 
goddess who was worshiped at Gebal. It is suspected that the 
name of Baasha, king of Israel, is a contracted or mutilated form 
of Baal-Shemesh. 

p72 is the name of a hero and also that of a clan—P73 "22. 
It is found in Phoenician (Carthaginian), as well as in Palmyra 
and in South Arabia. Deification of the lightning is common to 
almost all polytheistic religions. 

“a, the name of a divinity, of a man, and of a tribe, has 
already been spoken of. Note the combinations: 7A Si TP, 
AByad, Βελγαδ, 2 5757, and 573 (for S75). In Phoenician 
we find 5873, 12295, and others. 

5°53 occurs in the name of a woman, 5°3°AN. It has already 
been shown that the only way to account for this apparent absur- 
dity is to suppose the name to be that of a divinity. If there 


52 THEOPHOROUS PROPER NAMES IN OLD TESTAMENT 


were a god 5.2, the place 953 (originally 15°3) may have been 
named for him. 

7137, a Philistine god, had two sanctuaries in Israel. He is 
known also in Babylonia and in the Tell-el-Amarna tablets. 

77 or ΤΠ. A divinity of this name is indicated by the names 
sx, ΤΟΝ, ΤΏΙ, ΠΏ. The form ἽΓῚ ΤΥ, ΠῚ Chron. 20:37, 
seems to be an intentional corruption of ἽΓ ΤΥ (Δουδιου, Awdiov), 
while "717 is a shortened form of the same. 7752 may belong 
here, and the name David is a derivative. On the Moabite stone 
we find 7717, in Aramaic 77, and in Palmyra N77; also Didu 
in the Amarna tablets. 

7 is eponym of a tribe, and the name occurs in several place- 
names. Personal names are 1 δξ, 72M, and ΝΣ, besides 
Ιωδαν (for 79, ΤΙ Chron. 29:12). The Phoenician MNITOR may 
be ἼΩΝ with a feminine ending. M272wN, Neh. 8:4, is ety- 
mologically dubious. 

3777, the Syrian storm-god, was known in Edom, Arabia, and 
Mesopotamia. Evidences of his worship in Israel are scanty, 
consisting of the place-name Hadad-Rimmon, already referred 
to, and the personal name 773", which may be a contraction or 
mutilation of TH73N. In Phoenician we find 77, which is 
also Aramaic if our Hebrew text is correct. SamSi-Adad is 
given from Babylonian sources. 

“i1 seems to be another form of "748; notice OTN and 
ὈΠΓΙ, evidently two forms of the same name. On the other 
hand, “W777 is a simple textual error for "WII. 

777 is found as a personal name, and in the combinations 
THAN, THTAN, THIN, oT, TTT, WITT, and ThA. 
In the Greek Αβιουδ represents NITWAN in Ex. 6:23, and MIN 
in I Chron. 7:8. For 81775N in I Chron. 12:20 we read Ελιουδ, 
and there may be other instances where an original 777 has 
been disguised. Ovéd for Som, I Chron. 1:17, however, may be 
simply a corruption in the Greek text. 

ΘῈ gives us SyTAaN only, possibly textual error for 5T7.N, 

557, name of a man, may be connected with hilal, the new 
moon. 

Sat gives us ἼΖΤΟΝ, ὈΝΎΊΖΤ, Tate, aT, and ἼΣΩΣ. 


HENRY PRESERVED SMITH 53 


For the simple 727 in Ezra 10:27 we read ZaBaéda8. Offense 
seems to have been taken by the scribes at almost every name in 
which the word 727 occurs, for © shows an astonishing variety 
of equivalents. 

5a7 is the name of a man, and has some connection with the 
name of the tribe Zebulon. As we have Phoenician personal 
names >2772W and damN, we suspect a divinity. A certain 
plausibility is thereby given to the conjecture that Baal-zebub is 
a mutilation of an original Baal-Zebul. 

wim, the New Moon, is the name of a clan (I Chron. 8:9), 
and the feminine TWN is that of a town. Νουμήνιος (I Mace. 
12:16) shows that the personal name existed among the Jews at 
a late date, and the Phoenician WIMI2 belongs with it. The 
moon was an object of worship in western Asia, and almost every- 
where else, from very early times. 

TIN in TITAN is perhaps a mistake for TH. 

“im is the name of several men or clans, and is found as one 
element of the personal names “IMWN, "AM j= and "Mm"A>. 
Derivatives are "IN, OWN (2), and "2N ON. In Phoenician 
we find "7 and "7729; in Aramaic, "1"; and in Nabataean, 
ὙΠ and Sam. It has been suggested that this is the Kgyp- 
tian Horus. 

mim, Eve. That the name has some mythological significance 
is probable, and it may not be rash to connect it with MIM, a 
Carthaginian goddess of the underworld (Cook, p. 135). 

ΤΊ, the Boar, name of a guild of priests (I Chron. 24:15), 
has already been alluded to. A man of this name is mentioned 
in Nehemiah (10:21). 

ΤΊ occurs in ΤΣ, which may be a mistake for 57, already 
noted, or the mistake may be the other way. If the smooth ΤΊ was 
sometimes represented by 1, we might connect the name of 
Abraham’s maid "37, and that of the tribe which claimed her 
as their ancestress, with the South Arabian divinity "3" (Baeth- 
gen, p. 127). 

OM is one of the names denoting kinsmen which are so easily 
personalized. In Hebrew we find om, dxvan (d1an), yan, 
and Snvan. 


54 THEOPHOROUS PROPER NAMES IN OLD TESTAMENT 


mam, the Sun, accounts for the place-names yan and rvan 
(Josh. 19:35). The sun-pillars 0°22", mentioned several times 
in the Old Testament, are evidently dedicated to Baal-Hamman— 
a god popular with the Phoenicians, especially with the Cartha- 
ginians. 

"17am, the Ass, gave his name to the father of Shechem—that 
is, to the clan which inhabited the town—and to the place }Van. 

17, if a divine name, accounts for TIMOR, y=" 13: yn ‘poe 
yr Ss lrg ae V7, Tr, and >N20T, though in some of these 
"77 may beaverb. We find, however, a name Hanan and another 
Hanun. The Phoenicians used a shorter form as in >92:7, 
san, and SunM p>. 

ὉΠ, the Sun, gives its name to the places O°" WW and 
oan nian. 

210, the name of a district beyond the Jordan, occurs also in 
the personal names DIO"AN, DOAN, WDD, WI, and bean. 
Further, TaS8enr for 7520, I Chron. 26:11. The unusual 
WVIINDI, however (II Chron. 17:8), is regarded with sus- 
picion. Aramaean, besides 820, are DU"SN and 2073. 

5x", in the fuller form 581 is equivalent to the Arabic 
Wa’il, as already pointed out, and occurs also in Phoenician. 
5a-0772 may be ‘Ya’el-giver-of-life.’ 

v2", the pillar in Solomon’s temple, was probably worshiped 
by the superstitious, and we find a man who bears the same name. 

wy", ason of Ksau, is now usually thought to be named for 
the Arabic god Yaghttth. We may provisionally associate with 
it wy, "WI, and Sew". 

¥", an animal name, was borne by men and women; also 
found in the derived forms 853°, 537, and pb. 

ma", the Moon, must have been the patron deity of Jericho. 
The man or clan 717" (I Chron. 5:14) may represent the same 
divinity, and there was an Arab clan MM". 

“nM” occurs as the name of a man or boy, and we find also 
a) rae al ar a Gag ead 008 ΞΡ ΠΤ 

555, the Dog, gave his name to a Judaite clan. 255 may 
represent the same name disguised, while 205 (-- Χαλεβ, 1 
Chron. 4:11) and "255 seem to be derivatives. Among the 


HENRY PRESERVED SMITH 55 


Nabataeans we find 8255 (Cook, p. 237) and 1255 (CIS, II, 1, 
p. 283). 

wis, god of Moab, seems to have had a sanctuary in the 
country west of the Jordan, at Michmash (‘Place-of-Chemosh’). 

SoD, one of the constellations, gave its name to a place in 
Judah, and perhaps also to M1502 and ΤῸ : 

m25, one of the names of the moon, is also the name οὗ ἃ 
town (Judg. 21:19), and we are inclined to connect with it the 
patriarch Laban, as well as the places moo 555) and min). 

+15 is found in the name (of two men) ΡΤ. The anxiety 
of © to replace the second member with some other word may 
show that it had some uncomfortable association. 

om> is known as an ancient Babylonian divinity. He may 
have left a trace of his early worship in the name of Bethlehem, 
borne by two towns in Israel. 

mya: The name M2°TN, if meaning ‘Brother-of-death, 
would be eruel. Yet we find this name in use, as well as ὩΣ 
(place and personal), ΧΩ, and Nvyaqwaw. The name V1 
is also read Iepewo? by 6. The South Arabian district NVAISN 
may not belong in this connection. Since we know of a deity 
Muth which had a place in the Phoenician mythology (Eusebius, 
Praep. Evang., i, 33), we may suppose her to have invaded 
Palestine, rather than that Death has been personified. This, 
however, as we see from the Old Testament treatment of Sheol, 
would not be impossible. 

572 has already been spoken of. It occurs as the name of a 
man in the family of Saul (I Chron. 8:35; 9:41), and also in 
various combinations—72""a8, spine (once changed to ms), 
spitay , and others. For 5272 we find Μελχολ, showing that 
the attempt was sometimes made to disguise the name. Observe 
also MeAyaSavvas for "22272 (I Chron. 12:14). =p" may 
represent an original ΠΕΡ: Phoenician names, E5550, qo : 
yaaa ; ἼΩΝ, are strictly parallel to what we find in Hebrew. 
We can prove that the Phoenician names are syncretistic and 
not asseverative by such an example as manws224, where it 
would be absurd to render ‘Astarte-is-king.’ Two divinities, one 
male the other female, have here been fused into one—a not 


56 THEOPHOROUS PROPER NAMES IN OLD TESTAMENT 


uncommon phenomenon. In Assyria we find Sumu-Malik, and 
Ilu-Malik. The divinities assigned to the Samaritan colonists 
—Anammelech and Adarmelech—belong here. 05573 the Am- 
monite form of this god seems to occur as the name of a man 
(I Chron. 8:9). He is found also outside of Palestine (Cook, 
Ρ. 361). 

25 or ὨΞῸ would naturally be the female counterpart of 
Melek. The name is borne by Israelite women as well as by the 
Aramaean clan called ‘daughter of Haran” (Gen. 11:29). I8tar- 
Malkat occurs in Babylonia. In Phoenicia we find modanm 
(for MD>7aNTN) and n2dan (for ὨΞΟΏΓΙΝ). According to Cook 
(loc. cit., p. 185) mD57 was a goddess of the underworld to the 
Carthaginians. This may have been suggested by her identifi- 
cation with Ishtar, whose descensus ad inferos was recounted in 
the Babylonian myth. The Queen of Heaven, whose worship 
was rife in Jerusalem in the time of Jeremiah, will occur to the 
student. 

2 is mentioned as a divinity in Isa. 65:11. Possibly the 
name Ἴ ΤΊ was originally connected with him. In Phoenician 
we have ΠΩ). The Arabic Manat may be the female counter- 
part of this divinity. 

[2 occurs as a personal name (I Chron. 2:27), and also in 
the combination VyA"MN. 

77 is found, not only in Babylonian names, but also in that 
of the good Jew, Mordecai. 

123, the Babylonian god Naba, was early introduced into 
Palestine, as is indicated by the places named for him— Mount 
Nebo beyond the Jordan, a town in Judah, and one in Reuben. 
A family called 13) "32 existed in the post-exilic period (Ezra 
2:29). Whether Naboth, whose tragic story is well known, 
bears a name derived from that of this divinity or his female 
counterpart cannot be certainly affirmed. The Ishmaelite Nebai- 
oth is also dubious. In Phoenician we have laa, pwns, 
and 23°73. 

373; besides four men who bear the name Nadab, we have 
STMAN, AION, AWAY, 37", and 47°23, not to mention the 
Arabic clan 1773, NadaBaios (I Chron. 5: 19}: 


HENRY PRESERVED SMITH 57 


wns, the Serpent, gives us WM2, PWN, wm] Vy, jnwn, 
and ΠΤ. The demonic nature of the serpent is conceded in 
all religions. Naas is once preserved where the current Hebrew 
has Ὁ ΩΣ (I Chron. 26:4). 

Dy2, in the fuller form yay, is the name of a Syrian god, 
apparently the same with Adonis (see Duhm on Isa. 17:10). 
The name meets us not only in Naaman the Syrian, but also as a 
Benjamite clan-name (vars, Gen. 46:21; Num. 26:40; I Chron. 
8:4, 7). Personal names are O93 and 77392, also ὩΣ ΤΙΝ, 
ἘΣΣΣΝ, ΣΌΝ, and "ay3. The Phoenician sources give us 
ray2, DIN, nayIN2, BITSY, ΠΌΣΟ, and M5>7093. 

"3 and his son “δὲ ("3°2N) may be compared with S73. 

yO, the moon-god worshiped in Babylonia, Syria, and South 
Arabia, gave his name, we may suppose, to Sinai. 

ἼΞῸ was worshiped among the Phoenicians, if we may judge 
by the names 75074 and }3072». Conjecturally we may com- 
bine it with 37"J3W, not infrequent among the Hebrews. 

Vad is noticeable from the form ΌΤΙ, with which we 
may combine 773720, of which ἽΠΠΩ may be a corruption. 

Ὁ : The sacred horses dedicated to the sun are known from 
II Kings 23:11. The proper name "010, Num. 13:11, and the 
place-name 010 WEN, Josh. 19:5, may preserve relics of this 
cult. Among the Phoenicians we find a personal name DOC 
(CIS, I, 1, p. 95), which points to a divinity 000 with whom 
we may connect the Hebrew "200, I Chron. 2: 40. 

ΓΤ, the wife of Lamech, has long been suspected of being a 
goddess in disguise, in which case there was probably a male 
divinity "%. Notice the proper names NI, “TY, ION, 
oN, SND, ey, We, Aw, and the place Wy. 

"ΠΣ and "19, dialectically different, occur in so many forms 
that we must take account of them: "ἸΣ Θὰ, Αχιεζερ (for WIP"N), 
ΣΝ, DUD, FD, IN, ID, TNT, NW, TW. All these 
are personal names. An Aramaic king is "197770, if the reading 
is correct. In Phoenician we have "9, "YI7WN, “>22 , 
ὈΣΖΣ, “1972. In the alternate form we have the personal and 
place-name “79, and the person SX", with which compare 
the Phoenician 123979. The celebrated place Ebenezer shows 


58 THEOPHOROUS PROPER NAMES IN OLD TESTAMENT 


itself, then, to be the ‘Stone-of-Ezer,’ and must have recelveu 
its name from a maggebah like the one at Bethel. The change 
of the name Azariah to Uzziah, which has puzzled the expositors, 
will now be accounted for as an endeavor to get rid of an idola- 
trous suggestion. 

ἼΣ and ΤΊΣ naturally become divine names, as we see from 
Aziz, noticed above. In Hebrew we have “ΔΤ, ΝΣ, ND, 
UTD, TD, NID, WD, IY, NPY, WIP, and nay; in Phoe- 
nician, SIN), apyelPy , and 779729; in Palmyrene, TTY is 
the name of a man and also of a god. 

ΖΞ, a totemistic personal name, is found in Phoenician as 
well as in Hebrew (CJS, I, 1, p. 272). 

"9752, used as a name of Cod by itself and also in conjunction 
with D8, 7", and Oy7dN, was probably a separate divinity in the 
earlier time. According to Eusebius, the name was in use among 
the Phoenicians (Praep. Evang., i, 36 from Philo of Byblos). 

DY is another of the names of kinship, and is used in a large 
variety of combinations parallel to those in which we find other 
divine names: O98 (Phoenician ὩΣ ΘΝ), OPAW" (unless leoe- 
Baar represents the true reading), Oya, ὩΣ, ATW Ay, and 
others. The people ja» "22 possibly traced their origin to 
this deity. 

ΤΣ may be a reminiscence of the Babylonian Anu. We find 
ΓΟ ὭΣ ie lres pay . For 932 we have the contracted 
form Ni32 , sl: 

m2y, a Syrian goddess, perhaps originally the female counter- 
part of Anu, has given her name to several places; MIP M2, 
may ma, mins (Αναθωθ once for yn2n, Josh. 19:14), monn. 
It is also Phoenician (Cook, p. 80). 

ΠΩΣ, the chief goddess of the Canaanites (Ishtar of the 
Babylonians), is directly asserted to have been worshiped by the 
Israelites. It is remarkable, therefore, that aside from some 
place-names she does not appear in Old Testament proper names. 
This shows how thoroughly names which gave offense have been 
removed from our texts. Besides the place-names preserved to us 
there may have been others, for © gives Ασταρωθ for MWY in 
Num. 32:34; Josh. 16:5. πο (Josh. 21:27, usually supposed 


HENRY PRESERVED SMITH 59 


to be for ὩΣ M2) has a curious parallel in the Carthaginian 
personal name MANIA which we should take to be for M"NWYAN 
or MNANwWYI2. 

my, ΝΟΣ, MY was a divinity at Palmyra (notice ΠΩ 2, 
cited by Baudissin PRE’, II, p. 172), better known in the syn- 
cretistic form ΝΣ ΠῺΣ (Atargatis). In Hebrew we find "ny 
and ny. 

05 occurs as the name of a clan, and in the place-name, 
OD ma. We find also DN7U5D, "OSH (and the abbreviated 
form "055, vocalized in two ways), monn, ODOR, and wds=", 
perhaps for B55". 

"75 is made the name of a divinity in a late document. 
Earlier we find “WE ὉΣΞ and “WS m2. The obscure name 
"995, ΤΙ Sam. 23:35, may represent WS. 

V75 is one of the clans of Judah. We find also ys me 
mrss bya, and ΓῚΣ WD. 

mns. The Egyptian Ptah may be concealed in the Hebrew 
mmm. In Phoenician we find a man named NUM, and another 
named MMS ty. 

pi appears as the name of a divinity in the Phoenician 
Vaqpts and qDapty . It is also the name of a man (CJS, I, 
p. 200). It is found in combination in South Arabia. Hebrew 
forms are PIX, PIS, PIS IN, SIZ , sels Ὁ ΤΡ: = 

“=, 7, the Rock, is not uncommon as a figurative designa- 
tion of God. But the widespread adoration of rocks, stones, and 
mountains shows that the designation was originally more than 
a figure of speech. In Aramaic we find "$723 (Cook, p. 171). 
Compare the Hebrew forms 713758, davmz , Αβεισουρ (for 
Rito Bix. 6:20) eyes (Fr at) ay Nien 5 ios , 
and the place-names "1270, WX “2273, and NX m2. The name 
of the city Tyre may belong here. 

o> was an Arabian divinity, and may have given names to 
two localities and a man wwaby in our Hebrew text. 

(5X is found as a place-name in )5S 592 outside of Pales- 
tine, and ἼἼΞΞ was also a town of Gad, Josh. 13:27. Personal 
names are J1EX, }ES, ELON, ἜΧΟΝ, and ΓΞ. In Phoe- 
nician we find ΞΜ 2), jEST2, and >yn25% (name of a woman). 


60 THEOPHOROUS PROPER NAMES IN OLD TESTAMENT 


Dp appears in Ezekiel (47:19 (5, Καδημ for wip ), and also 
in MVP, "2727p, ΝΡ. Cadmus, who brought letters into 
Greece, if a god or a demigod, belongs here. There is a South 
Arabian name DIPON : 

CIP in Sip a, Ezra 2:53, may be the Nabataean divinity who 
appears in the name {N20P (Cook, p. 233). 

Vp designates the first outlaw, the first of the smiths, the 
eponym of the Kenites, and must have been an object of worship. 
Place-names in Palestine are 72°p and O°3"p, and the patriarch 
Kenan bears a very similar name. A South Arabian divinity 
ἪΡ is known, and we have 2» as Nabataean name of a woman 
(Cook, p. 228). 

wp, the father of Saul, may have been called for a god Ὁ 
or Wip. Compare Qaushmalaka, an Edomite name known to 
us from the Assyrian, with WWwip (I Chron. 15:17; in the par- 
allel passage, 6:29, it is "™"D). We have also a river yw", the 
town 7)"W), and the patronymic “DIpos. Nabataean names are 
ΝΡ and Twp. 

ὩΣ, known to be a divinity, appears as the name of a man in 
the genealogy, I Chron. 2:47, and in the compound 7p =a 
Zech. 7:2. 

5m, the eponymous ancestress of a group of tribes, was wor- 
shiped, as appears from the sacred pillar marking her grave. We 
are not surprised, therefore, to find the name Sma . 

om" is said to be a divinity according to the Palmyrene 
inscriptions, and also in South Arabia (Baethgen, p. 91). It is 
perhaps not too bold to associate with him DM" and DWM of 
our text. 

225", a clan in Judah and a man in Benjamin (II Sam. 4:2; 
notice Ῥηχαβ, place-name for 72" I Chron. 4:12), suggests the 
Aramaic 5825", 25°72 (Cook, pp. 159, 171). 

D" occurs in isolation, and also in the combinations D728, 
Dv aN, OWNS (Αχιραμ also for 7M), OD5a, Tan, Ow, 
and O79". Whether D192 and 727 belong here is not cer- 
tain. Phoenician names are ΒΞ: bya, and ΠΟΘ. 

7172" is the Hebrew form of Ramman, the Assyrian, Syrian, 
and South Arabian god of the thunder. He gives his name to two 


HENRY PRESERVED SMITH 61 


towns and a rock in Israel, besides Ραμμων for MVAN I, I Chron. 
6:80(65). We find also yan na, 709 Py, and ye yw. 
The name Hadad-Rimmon has already been commented upon. 

Ra (37), the Egyptian sun-god, has perhaps left traces in J""MN. 

57 appears in Phoenician in the composite divine name 
ΠΣ ΡΟ (Cook, p. 801). Rizpah, the concubine of Saul, is 
an apparent derivative. 

Siew, Saul, is the name of an Edomite, and of three Israelites. 
We have also ΝΘ and Sxw ; and a town conquered by Seti 
is given the name beurea. Itis a question, therefore, whether 
the ‘ Hill-of-Saul’ (Gibeath Saul)” was named for the Israelite king 
or for a divinity who gave his name, not only to the place, but to 
the man; 5INW should be the god of the underworld, Sheol. 

yaw, or with the softer labial 1, appears as a proper name 
(in both forms), and we find yaw x, pw N, DW AN, PWT, 
myawyT, Pw, (Pwr), yawns, Dyna, mwsd, besides 
the place-name JAW "Nl. In Aramaic we have “syaw, con- 
tracted from ">RVAW (CIS, II, 1, p. 119), and a god Sibi or 
Sibitti is known to the Babylonian epic (Jastrow, Religion 
Babyloniens und Assyriens, p. 173; KAT’, p. 413). 

"Tw in "Tw 5X is supposed by the latest pentateuchal author 
to be the name by which Yahweh revealed himself to the patri- 
archs. The word appears alsoin "ΠΣ, "TW", and WwW. 
These also are late, but, as we have knowledge of ancient divini- 
ties called O°TW, whose name appears in O°TW P7ay, we suspect 
that the original "TW was one of these. Μεισαδαι for XW in 
Lev. 10:4 is perhaps a further trace of this name. 

"YW occurs as a man’s name, and also in the compounds 
“TWIN, TWN (Αχιηλ), and Nw. 

“mw, the Dawn, would naturally be personified, and the name 
appears in “ΓΘ ΤΙ, Σααρηλ (for OMY, I Chron. 8:8), and 
ΓΤ. Compare the Phoenician >9a°Nw. 

"w looks like a mutilated form of some longer name. It is 
found in "WAN, "WAN, "wW" (for ΩΝ). Once we meet 
ABeoa for Δ ΖΝ, also Awecoa for NWI. The name "01M is 
probably contracted from "WINN. 


12 Notice that Saul’s home is apparently the Hill-of-God of I Sam. 10:5. 


62 THEOPHOROUS PROPER NAMES IN OLD TESTAMENT 


“Dw is at the basis of “"Dww" (for "2wwe). We find also 
aman named “3W and a place JMS. 

mow, name of a man (or tribe) in the genealogies, is also 
the patron of the Pool of Siloam (mw). ἜΠΟΣ, a man, and 
ΠΟ, a place, may properly be mentioned here along with the 
Phoenician WAN. 

now isa frequent element in proper names: powar, Dow's, 
ΓΟ, wadw, myadw, Diow, Wow, Ὁ 20 (Σαλαμιηλ also 
once for SNvaw, Num. 34:20; once for Σ᾽, Num. 13:4), 
Lerewas (for ΠΣ Δ, Jer. 43 [36]:12), the city Jerusalem and 
the sanctuary DW TW. Once we find Σαλλεὶμ for wid, and 
powa may be ὩΣ). In Phoenician we have Dw, p>woD", 
p>wna, and pbwhya. A divinity ἸΏ is attested by an in- 
scription (Cook, p. 42), and is known also in Babylonia. 

Dw , one of Noah’s sons, was probably a divinity. We discover 
the name in ΝΣ and y7"2W; possibly also in “OW (for 
Wrnw), maw, WANAW, ONDwW, and “waw. The name of 
Moses’ son ὩΣ Δ may belong here. On a deity with a similar 
name among the Assyrians see KAT", pp. 483 f. Phoenician 
gives us DW and Daraw. 

“aw, the alleged owner of the site of Samaria, would more 
naturally be taken for the patron deity of the place. In this 
case devotion to him is indicated further by the names "AU, 
saw, “Wao, maw, Ww, and naw. 

ww, the Sun, was widely worshiped throughout Asia, and 
must have been the tutelary deity of the hero ἼΔΩ, as well as 
of the localities Waw M2 and Waw 7»). In Ezra 4:8 we find 
a certain "Ww, and © gives us ἀχίσαμας (for YAW"TN) and 
Αβεισαμας (for YYW°XN). In Phoenician we find WAWITN and 
jpwwaw ; in Assyrian, Samsi-Adad and others. 

"yw, asatyr-like demon, gave his name to Mount Seir, and 
he and his congeners had sanctuaries in Jerusalem down to the 
time of the exile—O™wn ὩΣ, II Kings 23:8. Whether 
ΓΙ) and OY, place-names, belong here is not certain, but 
moyw, I Chron. 8:38, seems significant. 

“72M is a mountain, a fountain, and a sacred tree; therefore a 
divinity. The rallying-place of the warriors under Barak would 
naturally be a sanctuary, 


Henry PRESERVED SMITH 63 


“am, name of a place and of a clan, occurs in the combina- 
tion an 592 and in ἼΔΩ jean. Further, the man’s name 
"WaT" may be for WAN"IN or VAN. 

55M is the name of a place in the desert, and is also an ele- 
ment of the personal name ΞΟ ΤΙΝ. 

τ, the well-known household divinity (always in the plural 
in our texts), seems not to be used in the formation of any proper 
name that has come down to us. 

This list contains over a hundred names; and if we add to it 
the animal names given by other authors, we shall have a hundred 
and fifty possible names of divinities. The precarious nature 
of the evidence for some of them is evident; yet, when all 
due allowance is made for this, we have a considerable number 
that are reasonably certain. When we consider how industriously 
the effort was made to keep such names out of the text, we are 
surprised rather that so many have come down to us. While the 
mere possession of the names gives us no light on the nature of 
Israel’s polytheism, we are able, with the help of the other Semitic 
sources, to get a general idea of Hebrew popular religion. It is 
clear, for example, that the polydemonism of the desert is repre- 
sented by the se‘irim and shedim. The large group of animal 
names points to the same stage of religious thought. Sacred 
plants and wells, with the divinities who inhabit them, are quite 
analogous to what we find in other Semitic religions. Survivals 
have been pointed out in Syria in our own time. 

The larger nature-worship, as we may call it, whose objects 
are sun, moon, stars, the dawn, the lightning, and the fire, is 
attested by our list and needs no extended comment. The Old 
Testament writers are aware that their people were easily drawn 
away to worship the Host of Heaven. They thought, indeed, that 
this was a yielding to foreign influences, as in part it may have 
been. But the tendency to revere these objects is so natural to 
man that we shall hardly go wrong in assuming that we have here 
primitive Semitic traits. 

Our attention is next called to the group which we may call 
Syrian, in which we may without hesitation put Baal, Astarte, 
Gad, Meni, Anath, Rimmon, Adonis, Melek, and Naaman. Per- 


64 THEOPHOROUS PROPER NAMES IN OLD TESTAMENT 


haps Asher should be added to the list. Gad is the most signifi- 
cant, for he was not only a Syrian divinity, but the eponym of 
one of the tribes of Israel. All of these were, however, wor- 
shiped in Canaan before the conquest, and their survival in 
Israel was due to the amalgamation of Israel and the Canaanites. 
Edom, on the other hand, as eponym of a people allied by blood 
with Israel, was probably only sporadically worshiped in Canaan. 

These eponyms call attention to the question of animism. Were 
the eponyms deified men, or were the gods adopted by the tribes 
as ancestors? The answer cannot be given. But of animism in 
the definite sense we have evidence in the worship offered at the 
graves of Rachel and Deborah. Absalom’s pillar is interpreted 
in the same sense, but to follow up the evidence outside of proper 
names is not our present purpose. The teraphim, however, may 
be mentioned, as they occur in the list given above. They are 
usually supposed to be the ancestral images, though it is to be 
wished that the evidence were more definite. The personified 
kinsmen, however—Ab, Ah, Am, and Dod—may be plausibly 
interpreted as evidence of animism. 

Foreign gods came in from two sides, as we might expect. 
Egypt contributed Amon, Osiris, Horus, Muth, and Ra. We 
naturally suspect Zephon also of being in this group. But, as we 
have evidence of a Phoenician god of this name, we cannot insist 
on our hypothesis. From the eastern quarter (Assyria-Babylo- 
nia) we have Adar, Bel, Dagon, Nebo, Tammuz, and El—unless 
the last named is a primitive Semitic divinity. Tammuz does not 
appear in our list of proper names, but we have Ezekiel’s evidence 
that he was worshiped in Jerusalem at a late date. From the 
Moabites we get Chemosh. 

After accounting in this way for a number of divinities in our 
list, we still have a residuum of which we know only the names. 
Some of them are personifications of abstract qualities, like 
Goodness, Help, Strength, Plenty, and Splendor. Others were 
strictly local deities, like Tabor. The main result of our study is 
to confirm the conclusion, long ago reached by critical scholars, 
that monotheism never was the doctrine of the mass of the Israel- 
ites until after the exile. 


AN ANALYSIS OF ISATAH 40-62 


CHARLES AUGUSTUS BRIGGS 


AN ANALYSIS OF ISAIAH 40-62 
CHARLES AuGustTus Brices 


In the first edition of my Messianic Prophecy (1886) I made 
an analysis of Isaiah 40-66, in order to explain its Messianic 
ideas and arrange them in proper order. I then distinguished 
three sections of this prophecy: 

I. A long poem in the trimeter measure, whose principal 
theme was the divine deliverance of the Servant of Yahweh, 
divided into five parts, each closing with a refrain consisting of 
a little hymn or piece of a similar character: (1) 42:10-11, (2) 
44:23, (8) 49:12-18, (4) 55:12-13, (5) 61:10-11. 

II. A long poem in the pentameter measure, whose principal 
theme was the deliverance of Zion, the wife of Yahweh. This 
also had five parts, each closing with the refrain indicating the 
departure from Babylon: (1) 42:14-17, (2) 48:20-22, (3) 52: 
11-12, (4) 57:14-21, (5) 62:10-12. 

III. An appendix, 63-66, of various elements, some pre-exilic 
and some post-exilic, partly composed and partly edited by an 
author who attached them to the two earlier poems, which he 
welded together and edited. He divided the whole work into 
three parts with refrains, 48:22; 57:20-21; 66:24. 

I showed that the two earlier poems were distinguished: first, 
by measures, trimeter and pentameter—among the latter I then 
recognized some hexameters, which I have now abandoned; second, 
by the parallel themes, the Servant in the trimeter and Zion in 
the pentameter; third, by a reference in the trimeter to the great 
conqueror in general terms, in the pentameter by the name Cyrus; 
fourth, by the use of the divine name 7" ΠΝ in the pentam- 
eter and the appendix, but not in the trimeter. I did not at 
that time give a complete analysis, because I was concerned only 
with the Messianic idea, and had no space for it. I did not 
attempt any further textual criticism or removal of glosses than 
was necessary for my purpose. 

67 


68 An ANALysiIs oF IsaraH 40-62 


In 1886 critics of all schools recognized and maintained the 
unity of Isaiah 40-66, although some recognized earlier and later 
elements to a limited extent. The most important work had been 
done by Ewald, who divided the original prophecy into two parts, 
40-48 and 49-60, and stated that 61-66 were appendices, and 
that several little pieces were insertions from earlier prophets. 

In 1892 Duhm issued his able Commentary on Isaiah, in which 
he made an analysis of Isaiah 40-66, apparently without any 
knowledge of my previous work. He recognized differences of 
measure, and used these to a limited extent in his analysis; but 
he was more influenced by other considerations and has all the 
arbitrariness of the older fragmentary hypothesis. His use of 
the measures enables him to detect many glosses, but he is not 
sufficiently well grounded in the principles of Hebrew poetry to 
reach correct results either in the measures or in the strophical 
organization of the poems. Cheyne followed Duhm, only with 
increased arbitrariness. It is astonishing that a man who changes 
his own mind so often that one cannot be sure of quoting him 
correctly should be so insistent upon an absolute uniformity both 
of vocabulary and thought in this great prophet of the exile as 
to rule out from him any, even the most minor, deviations from 
a pretended type. It is not encouraging to sound scholarship to 
see so many of the younger German scholars following in their 
footsteps. 

My purpose in this article is to revise my analysis of Isaiah 
40-62 in order to distinguish the two great poems of the great 
prophet of the Exile. I give first the trimeter poem translated 
and arranged in measures, strophes, and in five parts, then the 
pentameter poem in the same way. I limit myself to such critical 
notes as seem to be necessary to my purpose. These are given at 
the foot of the page. I am obliged to consider the limits of space 
in such a composite work as these volumes in honor of my lamented 
friend. 


CHARLES AUGUSTUS BRIGGS 69 


THE EARLIER TRIMETER POEM 
Part I 


40:12 Who hath measured the waters in the hollow of His hand, 
And the heavens with a span meted out, 
And comprehended in a tierce the dust of the earth, 
And weighed in scales the mountains, 
And (weighed out)! the hills in balances? 

18 Who hath directed the spirit of Yahweh, 

And the man of His counsel maketh Him know, 
And? hath taught Him (in the path of*) knowledge? 


14 Who?‘ exchanged counsel and made Him understand, 
And taught Him in the path of justice, 
And the way of understanding made Him know? 
15 Behold the nations are as a drop of a bucket, 
And as the small dust of the balances are counted. 
Behold the isles as a very little thing He taketh up, 
16 And Lebanon is not sufficient to burn, 
And its animals are not sufficient for a whole burnt offering.’ 


18 To whom? will ye liken ’E], 
Or what likeness will ye compare to Him? 
19 The graven image a workman melteth, 
And a refiner with gold spreadeth it, 
And with chains of silver refineth it.’ 
20 A tree that will not rot he chooseth, 
A cunning workman he seeketh him, 
To set up a graven image that shall not be moved. 


21 Know ye not ?———_§ 
Hear ye not ?———° 


1A verb is needed to complete the measure, as in the synonymous lines; read, probably, 
obD . omitted because of obp in the previous line. 


2This line, which properly should close the strophe, has by error been transposed to 
14c, where it is out of place. Itis not in &, probably because its uncertain position dis- 
credited its authenticity. 

3’The measure requires "4X or 7, probably the former because of its use in the 
preceding line after misplacement. 

4 before "%Q is improbable; it is an explanatory gloss, making an awkward change 
of subject. 

5 Verse 17 repeats 15 in a dogmatic form, and makes the strophe just so much too long; 
it is therefore doubtless a gloss. 

6The ἢ is a gloss of connection, frequently inserted by prosaic copyists. 

ΤΊΣΙ ἸΞΟῺΓΙ is a gloss to introduce another action. 

8The last tone was omitted from these two lines for metrical pause, to make the ques- 
tions more distinct and emphatic; see my Comm. on the Book of Psalms, p. 5. 


70 


An ANALysIS oF IsataH 40-62 


It! hath been told you from the beginning, 
Ye! have understood from the foundations? of the earth; 


40:22 It is He that is enthroned upon the circle of the earth, 


The inhabitants thereof being as grasshoppers; 
He that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain,’ 
And hath spread‘ them out as a tent to dwell in. 


23 It is He that bringeth princes to nothing, 


The judges of earth as a thing of naught; 


24 Yea, they have not been planted, 


Yea, they have not been sown, 

Yea, they have not taken root, 

Their stock is (not)® in the earth; 

Moreover’ he hath blown against them and they have withered 
And a whirlwind taketh them away as stubble. 


25 ΤῸ whom will ye liken (’El),° 


That I may be equal, saith the Holy One? 


26 Lift up on high your eyes.” 


Who hath created these, 

That bringeth out in number their host, 

To all of them by name calleth, 

By the greatness of strength and might" of power, 
Not one lacking? 


27 Why sayest thou, Jacob, 


(Why)” speakest thou, Israel, 
“My way is hid from Yahweh, 
And from my God my cause passeth away?” 


23 Dost thou not know," hear, 


I~whn is a gloss of misinterpretation, making the lines too long for good measure. 
ΠΟ is an error for PATO (Duhm, Cheyne, Marti) or ΠΟ Ὡ Ὡ (Lowth). 
apa a.A.3 (τ ὡς καμάραν. Read Ip: with Klostermann, Cheyne, Marti. 
4OMMD «a. A.; BDB, Lexicon, ‘‘hath spread them out.” 

5 OY is an explanatory gloss, against the measure. 

655 is needed for measure and good sense. 


ΤἪ is improbable, as ὯΔ must be attached to the next word for good measure; see 


Comm. on the Book of Psalms, p. xliii. 


8" has been prefixed as in 18. 


95x is needed for measure, as in 18; it has been supplanted by the suff. "J—by a 


prosaic copyist, possibly because of the fuller ending of the verb in Ἴ as in 18. ΓΝ 
goes with next line; for measure and accent of MT are erroneous. 


1045, a frequent expansive gloss in such connections. 
11 are) adj., error for Tar, noun, as in the versions; parallel to 45. 
12 "ἸῺ should be repeated for good measure. 


13 xd DN is a prosaic gloss against measure. 


CHARLES AvuGuSTUS BRIGGS 71 


The everlasting God, Yahweh, 
The Creator of the ends of the earth, 
Fainteth not, neither is weary? 


There is no searching of His understanding, 
40:29 Giver of power to the faint, 

And to the one without might, strength.' 

30 The youths faint and are weary, 
And young men stumble exceedingly; 

31 But they that wait on Yahweh renew their power, 
They mount up with wings as eagles,’ 
They go and faint not. 


41: 1 Listen silently unto Me, ye isles, 
And let the peoples renew strength; 
Let them draw near, then let them speak, 
“Together for judgment let us approach.” 

2 Who hath awakened one from the East, 
Victory causeth to meet* him at every step, 
Giveth before him nations, 

And kings (before him)* beateth down ? 


He giveth them as dust to his sword, 
As driven stubble to his bow; 
3 He pursueth them, he passeth in safety 
On the path which he goeth not on foot. 
4 Who hath wrought and done it, 
Calling generations from the beginning, 
I, Yahweh, the first, 
And with the last am I the same. 


5 The coasts saw and feared, 
The ends of the earth trembled, 
They drew near and came (together);° 
6 Everyone helpeth his neighbor,° 
7 The workman strengtheneth the refiner, 


135° is an expansive gloss against measure. 

2 ἌΜΑ x4 “4 is not in accord with the simile of eagles flying, and makes the 
strophe just this line too long. It was a marginal note which has crept into the text. 

3 AAV Tp erroneous massoretic interpretation for JAN Pp 

4 Ces erroneous massoretic interpretation for ins D> was doubtless in the 
original, as the measure requires (cf. 45:1); and was omitted by a prosaic copyist because 
it had been used in the previous line and so would be tautological in prose. 

ὅ (ἃ axzaimplies 4fJ", needed for measure. 

opm SAN PMNS does not suit the context. Gis uncertain; (18 καὶ τῷ ἀδελφῷ καὶ 
ἐρεῖ ἴσχυσεν. ἀνὴρ τέκνων, (ἃ καὶ τῷ ἀδελφῷ βοηθῆσαι. It was an uncertain seam connecting 
the activity of the nations with that of the individual workman. It gives the verb pin a 
different meaning in the same context. 


ΠᾺ An ANALYsIS OF ΙΒΑΙΑΗ 40-62 


And he that smootheth with the hammer him that smiteth' the 
anvil, 

Saying of the soldering “It is good;” 

And he strengthened it with nails that it should not be moved.’ 


41: 8 But thou Israel, My servant, 

Jacob whom I have chosen, 
Seed of Abraham who loved Me,’ 

9 I have chosen thee and not rejected thee. 

io Fear not for I am with thee, 
Be not dismayed for I am thy God; 
I do strengthen thee, yea, I do help thee, 
I do uphold thee‘ with the right hand of My righteousness.’ 


15 Behold I do make thee® a threshing instrument,’ 
A new one having edges; 
It® will thresh the mountains and will beat them small, 
And will make the hills as chaff, 

16. It® will fan them and the wind will carry them away, 
And the whirlwind will scatter them; 
But thou wilt exult in Yahweh, 
Thou wilt boast in the Holy One of Israel. 


17 The afflicted’ seeking water, 
Whose tongue with thirst doth fail, 
I, Yahweh, will answer them, 
The God of Israel, I will not forsake them; 
18 I will open on the bare heights rivers, 
In the midst of valleys fountains, 
I will make the wilderness into a pool of water, 
And a thirsty land into springs of water.° 


ΙΝ is a prosaic gloss, against the measure, which requires that we should connect 
oon with DYD in one tone. 

2There is no sufficient reason for removing verses 6 and 7 to follow 40:20, as Oort, 
Duhm, Cheyne, Marti do; for this transposition spoils the strophes in both cases. The 
verses are needed here to prepare for the antithesis in the next strophe. Verse 5 also is 
suited to the context, and needed for the strophe; it is not a gloss, as Duhm would have it. 


3 Verse 9abe gives an historical reference to the call of Abraham; an original marginal 
note. 


4 ὍΣ is an intensive gloss, against the measure. 

5 Verses 11-14 continue the pentameter poem 40: 1-11; see p. 94. 

6 It is difficult in this context to think of Israel as this threshing instrument; it is most 
natural to refer it to the conqueror from the East of verse 2. It seems probable that a 
later editor misinterpreted it, and, referring it to Israel, introduced the , here and the 
second person of the verb, instead of the third in the subsequent verbs. Only thus do we 
get the proper antithesis for l6c. 

7 yn is an interpretative gloss. 


sO 3 3NMN and PR are expansive glosses, destroying the measures. 
9Cf. Is. 30:25. 


CHARLES AUGUSTUS BRIGGS 73 


41:19 I will put in the wilderness the cedar, the acacia, 

And the myrtle and the oleaster tree; 
I will set in the wilderness the fir-tree, 
The pine and the box together, 

20 That they may see and they may know, 
And they may consider, and they may understand together, 
That the hand of Yahweh hath done it,! 
The Holy One of Israel hath created it. 


21 Draw near,’ saith Yahweh, 
Bring near your mighty ones, 
Saith the King of Jacob. 

22 Let them bring them near, and declare to us 
That which will happen, 
The former things what they are,* 
And let us put our minds‘ upon their latter end; 
Of those things that are to come make us hear. 


23 Declare the things that are to come hereafter, 
That we may know that ye are gods. 
Yea, ye should do good or do evil, 
That we may be dismayed and (fear)° together.® 

25 I have raised up one from the North and he is come, 
From the rising of the sun that he may encounter,’ 
And he may trample® rulers as mortar, 
And as a potter treadeth clay. 


26 Who hath declared it from the beginning ?° 
And beforetime, that we may say “he is right?” 
Yea, there is none that declareth, 

Yea, there is none that maketh it heard, 
Yea, there is none that sayeth it; " 
23 And I see that there is no one, 


1 NT is an interpretative gloss, against the measure. 

2055 is an interpretative gloss, against the measure. 

3557) is an expansive gloss, against the measure. 

4='y—15"5 is an expansive gloss, against the measure. 

55 is an error for N™"3. 

6 Verse 24 is a gloss, a duplicate of 29, and premature. 

7 By misinterpretation of xp , “OWS was added, against the measure, 

855 is an error for 019", as most critics after Clericus and Lowth have recognized. 

995" is a gloss as in 22 above. 

WHS Ὡς YAW is a textual error; YAW is a repetition due to the mistaken addition 
of the suff, 55 to an original “VON , which is required to correspond with 26d. 


11 Verse 27 is a gloss, not harmonious with the context; probably originally on the 
margin. 


74 An ANALYsIS OF IsarAH 40-62 


And of them there is no counsellor, 
That I may ask them, and they may return a word.’ 


42:1 Behold My servant whom I uphold, 
My chosen in whom My soul delighteth; 
I have put My spirit upon him, 
Justice to the nations will he bring forth; 
2 He will not ery, nor lift up, 
Nor cause his voice to be heard in the street; 
3 A broken reed will he not break off, 
And the faint wick will he not quench.’ 


5 Thus saith Yahweh, the true God,’ 
He who created the heavens and stretched them out, 
He that spread out the earth and that which cometh out of it, 
He that giveth breath‘ upon it, 
And spirit to them that go therein: 
6 I, Yahweh, have called thee, 
With righteousness will I hold® thy hand, 
And I will keep thee for a covenant of the people.*® 


I will give thee for a light of the nations; 
7 To open the blind eyes, 

To bring out the prisoners from the dungeon, 

From the house of restraint those dwelling in darkness. 
8 Iam Yahweh, that is My name, 

And My glory to another will I not give.’ 
9 The former things, behold they are come to pass, 

And new things I am declaring’ 


10 Sing to Yahweh a new song, 
His praise from the end of the earth; 
Let the sea (thunder)® and its fulness, 
The coasts and their inhabitants ; 


; 1Verse 29 is a gloss, giving an answer that the context does not suggest, but is rather 
a dogmatic utterance of a later editor. 


2Verse 3c repeats 1d and is a gloss; so is the whole of 4, with the reference to the 
coasts. Both enlarge the strophe beyond its normal dimensions. 


ΒΌΝΤΊ, Ps. 85:9, probably for pDybyn. 
4 py> is an expansive gloss, 
5" is a gloss of misinterpretation of its connection in the sentence. 


6 T3EN1 goes with the last two words to begin the next strophe. There has been, as 
often, a prosaic combination of verbs. 


7 p {oD ἼΣΩΣ is an expansive gloss, against the measure. 
8 Verse 9c is an expansive gloss, out of the measure and the strophical organization. 
IDI, as Lowth conjectured, has been corrupted into "5". 


CHARLES AUGUSTUS BRIGGS 75 


42:11 Let the wilderness (exult)' and its (flocks),? 
The settlements where Kedar dwelleth ; 
Let the inhabitants of Sela jubilate, 
From the top of the mountains shout.’ 


Parr II 


18 Ye deaf, hearken (to hear),* 
And ye blind, look to see. 
19 Who is blind but My servants,” 
And deaf but (their rulers)?° 
20 Ye saw’ many things without (seeing), 
Opened their ears without hearing. 
21 Yahweh was pleased, for His righteousness’ sake, 
To magnify and make glorious the teaching.’ 


23 Who among you will give ear to this, 
Will hearken and hear for time to come? 
24 Who gave Jacob for a spoil, 
And Israel to robbers; was it not Yahweh? 
25 And He poured upon him fury, 
His anger and the fierceness of battle; 
And it set him on fire round about, and he knew it not, 
And burned in him, and he laid it not to heart. 


43:1 And now thus saith Yahweh, 
Who created thee, O Jacob, and who formed thee:" 
Fear not for I do redeem thee, 
I have called (thee)'! by thy name, thou art Mine. 


14N" is a corruption of an original {W199 ; so Klostermann, Graetz, Cheyne, Marti. 

255" does not suit the wilderness; it is an error for }[\J, the J having been 
omitted by haplography. 

3 Verses 12 and 13 are glosses of an expansive character, not suited to the context. 
This is followed by a strophe of the pentameter poem, 14-17, the continuation of 41:11 f.; 
see p. 94. 

4The measure and parallelism require yaw : 

ὅ (ἃ has plur., as the context indeed requires; the sing. in MT is an erroneous interpre- 
tation. 

6So &, which omits altogether ΠΣ "9 πΙΞῸΝ ἜΝΘ. The last clause is a gloss, 

TAN Qré, infin. abs., parallel with Mp , is the correct reading; Ktib PN isa 
misinterpretation. "AWM x4 belongs in next line, only it should be 2 plur., as the con- 
text requires. In this line ἜΝ is necessary for good sense. 


8 Verse 22 is a gloss, originally on the margin, descriptive of the sufferings of the people 
at the Exile. 


9 Verse 246 is a gloss, originally on the margin, giving the reason for the afflictions. 
10 Sw is here a gloss, making line a tetrameter. 
11 The suff. should be added to ® as in & ζ΄, Lowth. 


76 An ANALysiIs OF IsataH 40-62 


43: 2 When! in waters I will be with thee, 
And rivers? will not overflow thee; 
When! in fire thou wilt not be burned, 
And the flame will not consume thee; 


3 For I, Yahweh, thy God, 

The Holy One of Israel, thy Savior, 
Will give Egypt as thy ransom, 
Cush and Sheba in thy stead, 

4 Since thou art precious in Mine eyes, 
Thou art honored and I love thee; 
And I will give (lands)* in thy stead 
And peoples instead of thy life. 


5 From‘ the sun-rising will I bring thy seed, 
And from sun-setting will I gather thee; 
6 I will say to the North, “Give up!” 
And to the South, “ Withhold not!” 
Bring My sons from afar, 
And My daughters from the ends of the earth, 
7 All who are called by My name,’ 
Whom I formed, yea made.° 


9 Who can declare this, 
And former things can make us hear; 
Let them give their witnesses that they may be vindicated, 
And let them make it to be heard’ and say faithfully,’ 
10 That ye may know and ye may believe Me; 
That ye may understand that I am He. 
Before Me a God was not formed, 
And after Me there shall be none. 


11 I, 1am Yahweh, 
And there is not besides Me a Savior. 
12 I, I declare,’ and I let it be heard, 
And there was not among you a strange (god) 


1The verbs ΠΣ ΨΩ and nN are expansive glosses, against the measure. 
2So &; the 3 is an assimilation to the previous line. 


3Read PAN, as the context requires, with Duhm, Cheyne, Marti, for BIN of #; 
the [} was omitted by haplography before ΤΣ of next word. 


AON INN Ὁ LVN bx is a gloss; so Duhm, Marti. 

SARS 955 is an expansive dogmatie gloss. 

6 Verses 8 and 9ab are glosses; so also OPQ, due to previous glosses. 

7 wnt" is an erroneous interpretation; it should be Hiph., as usual, Wa. 


s'Verke 10, as far as ἸΣῺ is a gloss of expansion, destroying the measure and the 
symmetry of the strophe. 


IAW is dittograph of ΩΣ Ow. 


CHARLES AUGUSTUS BRIGGS yor 


Ye being My witnesses and I God.! 

43:13 Yea, from the days of old? I am the same, 
And there is none that from My hand can deliver; 
I work, and who can reverse it? 


14 Thus saith Yahweh, 
Your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel: 
For your sake have I sent against Babylon, 
And I have cast down the bars (for you), 
(And I have aroused My chosen), all of them.’ 
But as for the Chaldeans, for (mourning) their ringing cry 
(is exchanged). 
15 Iam Yahweh, your Holy One, 
Creator of Israel, your King. 


16 Thus saith Yahweh, 
(Your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel),° 
He that made in the sea a way, 
And in the waters a path; 

17 That bringeth forth chariot and horse, 
Army and strength together; 
They lie down, they cannot rise up, 
They are extinct, as flax are they quenched: 


18 Remember not the former things, 
And consider not the things of old. 
19 Behold I am about to do a new thing; 
It sprouteth forth, can ye not know it? 
Yea, in the wilderness shall be a way, 
And in the desert will I put® rivers; 
20 The wild animals of the field will glorify Me, 
The jackals and the ostriches.’ 


17799 DN is not in &, and is a gloss, against the measure. 
26974 bas no meaning by itself; (ἃ ἔτι am’ ἀρχῆς suggests ΞΡ "4" or DIP ΠΡ 
and indeed the measure requires it. 


3A line is missing in # and &, which, however, differ in verbs, showing either variant 
readings, or two similar lines, the one followed by 38, the other by &, which is not infre- 
quently the case. The latter is more probable, as it supplies the missing line. The two 
were then, probably: 


ps> ps ons 
ἘΞΞ “na ony 


4m IN, massoretic error for $)]93N3 as Is. 29:2, Lam. 2:5; so Hitzig, Ewald, Marti. 


5 A line is missing, and even the first line lacks a tone. I venture to insert a line usual 
in such connections. 
6B "WN belongs to this line, not to the previous one. 


7 Verses 20c-21 are a gloss, repetitious in character; so Duhm, Cheyne, Marti. 


43:22 


25 


26 


An ANALysIs oF IsataH 40-62 


Me hast thou not called, O Jacob, 

Or! wearied Me, O Israel; 

Thou hast not brought thy whole burnt-offerings,’ 

And with peace offerings hast not honored Me; 

I have not made thee serve Me with grain offering, 

And I have not wearied thee with frankincense; 

Thou hast not got for Me calamus with silver, 

And with the fat of thy peace-offering thou hast not satiated Me.* 


I, even I, am the same, 

That blotteth out thy transgressions for Mine own sake, 
And thy sins I remember not. 

Put Me in remembrance, let us plead together; 

Tell it, that‘ thou mayest be justified. 

Thy first father sinned, 

And thy representatives transgressed against Me,° 
Therefore I gave up Jacob to the ban.° 


And now,’ Jacob My servant, 

And Israel, whom I have chosen; 

Thus saith Yahweh, thy Maker, 

And He that formed thee from the womb to help thee: 
Fear not, My servant Jacob, 

And Jeshurun, whom I have chosen; 

For I will pour water upon the thirsty place, 

And streams upon the dry land. 


I will pour My Spirit upon thy seed, 

And My blessings upon thine offspring; 

And they shall spring forth, (as) grass among® (waters), 
As willows by the water courses; 

One will say, “I am Yahweh’s,” 

Another will proclaim his name Jacob; 

One will subscribe with his hand to Yahweh, 

And surname his name Israel. 


155 is a gloss of misinterpretation; οὐδὲ of & is a correct interpretation, because the 
force of the negative was carried over into this line. 

2 -ὃ "Ὁ is an expansive gloss. 

3 Verse 24cd is an antithesis sufficiently suggested without being inserted; it was a 
marginal justification of God. 

4The line has one word too many, probably FAN ; no such emphasis was needed. 

‘wp "0 sore is of doubtful meaning in this context. It is probably an expan- 
sive gloss to the previous context, and should be in the third pers. as & S$, but # has the 
first person and attaches it to subsequent context. 

6 The last two words, mp wn seam , are an expansive gloss. 

ΤΣ ΔῚΣ is a gloss, stating what was implied; against the measure. 


873, interpreted by Massora as Ta , should more properly be OQ Pas asin &; 
so Lowth. 


44: θ 


--: 


10 


18 


CHARLES AUGUSTUS BRIGGS 79 


Thus saith Yahweh, the King,' 

And the Redeemer, Yahweh Sabaoth: 

I am first? and last, 

And beside Me there is no God. 

Who is like Me? Let him come to the encounter, 

And let him declare it, and let him set it in order for Me. 
Who hath made to be heard’ former things, 

And what shall come to pass can declare ?* 


Fear ye not, and be not afraid;° 

Have I not from of old made thee hear ? 

Indeed I have declared it, ye being My witnesses,° 

And there is no Rock (beside Me).' 

The framers of images, all of which’ are unreal, 

And whose precious things profit not, 

Their witnesses* see not, 

And they know not, in order that they may be ashamed. 


Who hath formed an image, 

A god he has molten that is profitable’ for nothing!" 
A worker in iron doth (measure an idol),” 

And worketh (it)!* in the coals, 

And formeth it with hammers, 

And worketh it with his strong arm. 

Yea, has he hunger he has no power, 

Has he not drunken water he is faint. 


A worker in wood doth stretch a line, 
He marketh it with a stylus, 


1Read an and Senn ; the lines have been enlarged by the glosses Swe and the 


suffix. 


2The repetition of ἌΝ makes the statements more distinct and emphatic, but it 
destroys the measure and is therefore improbable, 


EPA Oy OY Ww is a textual error for MYM YAW A. The sepa- 
ration of Y and dittography of Ὦ made OY, and then poy and ἢ were necessary for 
good sense. 


4The plur, and 5 are errors of interpretation. 

5 Read {WM for WM with Ewald, Budde, al. 

esy>o1 =e wr is a gloss; "ἂν not elsewhere in Isaiah 40—66, and im- 
probable. 

ΤΊ ΤΊ 55 is a corruption of an original 7590 ; 

855 implies relative clause, 55 ἌΝ. 

9 ΓΙ. with extraordinary points; textual error, dittograph of the previous DM suff. 

10 bx and bop have been transposed by error; the former belongs in the second line. 

11 Verse 11 is a gloss of imprecation which interrupts the thought. 

12™)°9 is probably an error for an original 5¥9 “ΤῺ ; the % has been pressed out. 

13™\N is needed for measure. 


80 ΑΝ ANALYSIS OF ΙΒΑΙΑΗ 40-62 


He shapeth it with planes, 
And with compasses marketh it out; 
And so he doth make it like the figure of a man, 
Like the beauty of a man to endure.’ 

44:14 As for a house, he must hew him down cedars, 
And take the holm tree and the oak. 


And he secured him trees,’ 
Of the forest which (Yahweh)? planted, 
Cedars‘ which the rain made to grow strong; 
15 And so aman had them to burn, 
And he took some of them and warmed himself, 
Yea, he kindleth them and baketh bread, 
Yea, he maketh a god and did worship it, 
He made it a graven image and fell down to it.° 


21 Remember these things, Jacob,° 
For thou art My servant, 
I formed thee, My witness’ art thou, 
Israel, do not forget® Me. 
22 I have blotted out as a thick cloud thy transgressions, 
And as a cloud? thy sins. 
Return unto Me, (Jacob);”° 
For I have redeemed thee, (Israel)."° 


23 Ring out, ye heavens (above)," 
That Yahweh hath done it; 
Shout, ye lower parts of the earth, 


Insw> belongs with DN to indicate the permanence of the image, as in 40: 20; 41:7. 
The ΤΣ is the house or temple for the image, and properly belongs in the next line. 


2595 “95 is compressed from an original B°¥YY3, which belongs with the first 
line, and 3395), which begins the second. 


8 (ἃ has V7" which is needed for measure. 


ATR, marked as doubtful by the little Nun, represents an original B'T3N, cedars, 
which being wrongly attached to the second line occasioned the insertion of the ἢ before 
DW5, all of which destroyed the measure of the three lines and its fine parallelism. 


5 Verses 16-20 are an expansive gloss, in prosaic style, and repetitious in character. 
There is no sufficient reason, however, with Duhm, Cheyne, Marti, to regard the whole 
passage, 9-20, asa gloss. This prophecy throughout is characterized by its putting in anti- 
thesis the God of Israel with the idols of the heathen. 


ὁ) inserted, as often, by error, making the line tetrameter. 
7 "5 ΚΣ, tautological; probably an error for > ayo 
8§535r), error for 30M. 


9This line needs another tone, either a verb or else the full form of the preposition, 
repo "95"; cf. 41:25; 51:6. 
10 These names are needed for measure. 


110° QW is not in proper antithesis to as ΤΥ ΩΓ ; read bb ypayal as in 45:8, and 


get the missing tone. 


CHARLES AUGUSTUS BrIGGs 81 


(That Yahweh hath created it);} 

Break forth, ye mountains, into ringing cries, 
Ye forest and every tree therein, 

That Yahweh hath redeemed Jacob, 

And in Israel beautifieth Himself? 


Parr III 


46: 1 Bel doth bow down,? ——— 
Nebo doth stoop;* * ——— 
Their images are for animals, 
And upon cattle are lifted up,° 
Are loaded as a burden to a weary (beast). 
2 They stoop, they bow down together, 
And are not able to deliver,® 
And they themselves into captivity do go. 


3 Hearken unto Me, house of Jacob, 
And all the remnant of the house of Israel; 
Ye that have been loaded from the belly, 
Ye that have been carried from the womb; 
4 Even unto old age I am the same, 
And unto hoar hairs I’ will bear thee as a burden; 
I have done it,’ and I will lift thee up, 
And I will bear thee as a burden, and I will deliver. 


5 To whom will ye liken Me and make Me equal, 
And compare Me that we may be like? 

6 They that lavish gold out of a bag, 
And silver in the balance weigh; 
Hire a refiner, that he may make ἃ god;° 
They fall down, yes, worship, 

7 They lift him upon the shoulder and carry him, 
And set him in his place that he may stand.’ 


1 What the heavens are to ring out is given, so also with the mountains; but what the 
earth is to shout is not given in 323. The missing line undoubtedly gave it. We may sug- 
gest it by using N73, often a synonym of MWY in this prophet. 

2Chapter 45 continues the pentameter poem; see p. 96. It was inserted here when the 
two poems were consolidated. 

3 These are broken lines for emphasis; see 40:21. 

4O7p should be perf., OVP, parallel to YD. 

5 The line needs another tone, read Lia for 55 ; 

6 NW makes the line too long. It has come into the text from the preceding verse. 

7438 is a gloss, destroying the measure. An emphasis upon the first person is overdone 
with these intermediate verbs. 

8The suff. \7— is a gloss of unnecessary explanation, making the line too long. It is 
necessary to connect bx by makkeph to the verb, and so we should read ὌΝΤ᾽ Ἢ Ε 

9Cf. 40:20; 41:7; 44:18. Thereis no sound reason for regarding verses 6-8 as an insertion. 


82 An ANALYSIS OF ΙΒΑΙΔΗ 40-62 


From his place he will not remove, 
Yea, if one crieth upon him he will not answer;' 
From his trouble will not save him, 
46: 8 Remember ye this and (be ashamed),’ 

And recall it unto mind, ye transgressors; 

9 Remember the former things of old, 
That I am God, and there is no one else; 
God, and there is none like Me. 


10 He that declareth from the beginning the end, 
And from ancient time what hath not been done; 
That sayeth, “My counsel shall stand, 

And all my pleasure will I do;” 

11 That calleth from the East a bird of prey, 
From afar’ the man of His counsel; 

I‘ have spoken, yea, I will bring it to pass, 
I have formed it, yea, I will do it. 


12 Hearken unto Me, ye (whose heart faileth),’ 
Ye that are far from righteousness, draw near.° 
13 My righteousness is not far off, 
And My salvation will not tarry; 
And I will give in Zion salvation, 
And to (the house of) Israel’ My beauty *® 


48: 1 Hear this, house of Jacob, 
Ye that are called by the name of Israel, 
And from the (bowels)* of Judah went forth; 
Ye that swear by the name of Yahweh, 
And the God of Israel commemorate,” 


indy is amisinterpretation; read πον , as the measure requires. 

2DWNOM, «.A.,is an error for WWAMM; so Schleusner, Lagarde. 

SPAN is an expansive gloss. 

4The first FN is a gloss, destroying the measure. 

55 ΣΙΝ is improbable; read with & 35 “TN as in Jer. 4:9, 

bes 

6A yerbis needed, probably \3"\), which by mistake has been attached to next verse, 
and being regarded as infin. abs, interpreted as wap ὃ 

1 ἘῸΤ measure read ἘΝ ab) : 

8This strophe lacks two lines, which seem to have been omitted when chap. 47 was 
inserted. Chap. 47 is a magnificent taunt song, or triumphal song over Babylon. It is 
pentameterin measure; but it has five strophes of seven lines each, and ts thus of a different 
strophical organization from that of the great pentameter poem. It is complete in itself, 
and seems to have been originally an entirely independent composition. 

INA, error for WA; Secker, Marti; cf. Gen. 15:4, & "5%. 


10 mptxa ΝΞ MON3 xd is a gloss, disturbing to the context. 


CHARLES AvuGusTus BriaeGs 83 


48: 2 From the Holy City are called, 
And upon the God of Israel stay yourselves, 
Yahweh, Sabaoth His name. 


3 The former things from of old I declared, 
And from My mouth they went forth, that I might make them heard; 
Suddenly I did them, and they came to pass;! 
5 Before they came to pass” I made them heard,’ ἢ 
6 (Ye) did hear, behold? it all. 
O ye, will ye not declare it ? 
Now I do make new things heard, 
And hidden things that ye do not know.® 


7 Now they are created,’ (they are) not of old, 
Formerly thou didst not hear them,‘ 
Lest thou shouldst say, “ Babold I know them.” 
8 Yea thou didst not hear, ———— 
Yea thou didst not know, ————? 
Yea of old one did not open them up,” 
11 For Mine own sake, for Mine own sake, I will do them,” 
And My glory to another will I not give. 


12 Hearken unto Me, Jacob, 
And Israel, named by Me,” 
I am the same, I am the first, 
Also I am the last; 
13 Also My hand founded the earth, 
And My right hand spread out the heavens; 


1 Verse 4 15 a gloss, inharmonious with its context, requiring the insertion of the seam 5a, 
295M is anerror for ΓΊΝΩ asin3. 
3 Verse Sed isa gloss: DIY "D031 MOD] OWY "ary WaNn 15: 


£The suff. τῇ was due to the insertion; the original text had it not, and it is erroneous 
in the true context. 


5fiTT is an erroneous massoretic interpretation of an original infin. abs. carrying on 
force of the verb which originally must have been in the true context, ὩΣ ΔῚΣ. or infin. 
abs., YAW instead of 2sing. ὩΣ. 

ΩΣ) 1) . massoretic error for pons , which the context demands. 

74 itll ‘x makes a separate tone, spharens xd must be attached to TR by mak- 
keph for one tone; ἤ is therefore a gloss of misinterpretation. 


859 ὩΣ is an error for ND DDS as Klostermann, Stade, Cheyne, Marti; 
which gives good measure. 


9 Broken lines for emphasis; see 40: 21; 46:1. 


1073TN is a gloss of misinterpretation of AMMDH. Weshould read ΠΣ . infin. abs., 
in the sense of ‘explain,’ which is given in & as 1 sing.; so Duhm, Marti, 


11 Verses 8d-10 are an expansive gloss (Duhm), which really disturbs the context. 
12 Verse 11b has been inserted as a gloss between lla and c; so Duhm, 
13 "NIP is dubious; (ἃ ὃν ἐγὼ καλῶ, Another tone is needed for measure; read 


72 Nps. 


84 An ANALYsis oF Isatan 40-62 


I call unto them, 
They stand up together.’ 


48:14 Who? among you hath declared these things ? 
His friend’ will accomplish His pleasure, 
Against Babylon and the seed‘ of the Chaldeans. 
15 I° have spoken, yea, I have called him, 
I have brought him and will make his way prosperous.® 
16 Draw near unto Me, hear ye this; 
Not in secret‘ did I speak, 
Before the time of its happening I made it heard.*° 


49: 1 Hearken, O coasts, unto me, 
And give attention, ye peoples from afar: 
Yahweh from the womb called me, 
And from the bowels of my mother mentioned me;° 
2 And made my mouth like a sharp sword, 
In the shadow of His hand hid me, 
And made me a polished arrow, 
In" His quiver concealed me. 


3 And He said to me, “Thou art My servant, 
Israel, in whom I will beautify Myself.” 

4 As for me,” I have toiled in vain, to no purpose, 
In vain have I spent my strength, 
Yet surely my judgment is with Yahweh, 
And my recompense with my God, 

5 And I shall be glorified in the eye of Yahweh," 
In that my God is my strength. 


1 Another tone is needed for measure; insert, probably, BF. 


245901 5355 apn is an introductory gloss, hardly to be thought of in the sam 
strophe with 16a. 


301" is a gloss, not in &, and against the measure. 

4 wat is an error of interpretation for Y™T ‘seed,’ of &, which alone suits the context. 
5535N , twice in 33, but once in &; only one is allowed by the measure. 

6 morn should be infin. abs. It is rightly interpreted by & as 1 sing. 

TINY is a disturbing gloss. 


8558 OW is improbable; it is an error for "MY MWM; cf. 44:8 (Marti), the initial Τῇ 
having been left off by haplography, and YY overlooked. 


9 Verse 16d is a pentameter line which seems to be a seam connecting with the strophe 
of the pentameter poem that follows. 


105" makes the line too long. It represents only an original suff. =. 
11 The line needs another tone; read WA for 3. 


RAMAN 7381 is a gloss of introduction, sufficiently implied, however, by the emphatic 
“SN. It destroys the measure. 


13 This couplet has by a copyist’s error been transposed so that it now follows the next 
tetrastich, where it disturbs the context. 


CHARLES AUGUSTUS BRIGGS 85 


49: 5 And now (thus)! saith Yahweh, 
That formed thee from the womb for servant to Him, 
To bring back Jacob unto Him, 
That Israel to Him? might be assembled; ? 
6 To raise up the tribes of Jacob, 
And to restore the preserved of Israel, 
And I will give thee for a light to the nations, 
My* salvation to the end of the earth. 


7 Thus saith Yahweh, 
The Redeemer of Israel and his Holy One, 
To one despised in person, to the one abhorred of nations, 
To a servant of Kings (and princes):° 
“Kings will see and rise up, 
Princes (will behold)* and bow down, 
Because of Him’ who is faithful, 
The Holy One of Israel who chooseth thee.”® 


8 Thus saith Yahweh: 
In an acceptable time I answered thee, 
And in a day of salvation I helped thee, 
And I will keep thee for a covenant of the people, 
And I will give® thee to raise up the land, 
To make them inherit the desolate heritages; 
9 Saying to them that are bound, “Go forth,” 
And to them that are in darkness, “Show yourselves.” 


Upon the ways will they pasture, 

And on all bare heights will be their pasturage; 
10 They will not hunger and they will not thirst, 

Neither will the burning wind or sun smite them, 

For He that compassioneth them will lead them, 

And unto springs of water will He guide them, 


150 (τ S$ V Lowth. 
2 δ should be aS (Qre, Aq. ©, RV., Lowth, most critics), not negative as in MT. 


3 Verse θα, 39 "5 ΤΠ >p3 “AN, is a repetitious gloss, making the strophe 
too long and not in good measure. 


4 nv is an unnecessary gloss, making the line too long. 

5 The line lacks one tone; DH. is suggested by the subsequent context. 
6A verb is needed to complete the measure; the parallelism suggests ff}. 
TP is an unnecessary insertion for explanation. 

8 ΓΙ ΟἽ is a misinterpretation. It is a relative clause without ale 


9Cf. 42:6. In this case as in that the verbs have been consolidated after the prose 
style, at the expense of the measure; "T3$\N] goes properly with this line. 


86 An ANALysIs oF Isatan 40-62 


49:11 And! make every mountain into a way, 
And (all)? highways’ will be lifted up. 


12 Behold these from afar will come, 
And? these from the North and from the Sea, 
And these from the land of Sinim. 

13 Ring out, ye heavens (above),* 
And ye (lower parts of the)‘ earth, rejoice, 
Break forth with songs, ye mountains ; 
That Yahweh hath comforted His people, 
And to His afflicted is compassionate.’ 


Part IV 


51: 4 Attend unto Me, My people, 
And My folk, unto Me give ear; 
For the Law from Me will go forth, 
And My judgment will become a light to the peoples.° 
5 Ina moment My righteousness doth draw near, 
My salvation will go forth,’ will vindicate; 
Upon Me the coasts will wait, 
And unto Mine arm will they look in hope. 


6 Lift up to heaven your eyes, 
And look unto the earth beneath, 
For the heavens as smoke do (slip away),° 
And the earth like a garment will wear out, 
And her inhabitants die as (gnats),” 


15"), an improbable change from third pers. ; ΞΟ arose from dittography of 
the ἢ in qa ; this occasioned "7 for 37 and "MAW" for Dw. 


255 is needed for measure before moon as before “\f7; so &. 
3™15= is a gloss, making bad measure; repeated from the previous line. 


4These lines are defective; the first should have bn and the second JMNM, as 
in 44: 23, 


5 Verse 14 begins another section of the pentameter poem, which, with various glosses, 
continues through chaps. 50 and 51: 1-3; see pp. 101, 102. 


δ ΣΝ should begin the next line as in &, ἐγγίζει ταχύ, for the measure requires it, 
and we should read ΣᾺ for J°A4N. The change of form was an interpretation of #, due 
to its interpretation of the connection of words. So for ap we should read ΞΡ 5 

=e: 


7 Xx? massoretic error for Ni (τ Cheyne, Marti), which then is closely connected with 
ΟῚ, which should be sing., the plur. having originated from the gloss DAY Ti, 
the former having come in from 5d, the latter from 4d, all at the expense of the measure 


and the seuse. 


8 ΠΣ ὯΣ 4.A., BDB, Lexicon, ‘be dispersed in fragments,’ probably an error for soo), 
‘slip away.’ 


975 5%QD ‘in like manner,’ though sustained by the versions, does not seem appro- 
priate. Read $55, ‘gnats,’ with Lowth, Gesenius, Knobel, al. 


CHARLES AUGUSTUS BRIGGS 87 


: 8 And as wool will the worm devour them;! 


But My righteousness will be forever, 
And My salvation for generation after generation. 


52:13 Behold My servant will prosper, 


538: 


He? will be exalted and be high exceedingly.? 


14 As disfigured‘ more than a man in his appearance 
[Ξ} pp ’ 


And his form than the sons of mankind, 


15 So will he startle many nations, 


Kings? will stop their mouths; 
For what had not been told® they will have seen, 
And what they had not heard they will have attentively considered. 


1 Who believed the report,’ 


And His arm,’ unto whom was it revealed ? 


2 When he grew up as a suckling plant before Him, 


And as a root out of a dry ground; 
He had no form, no majesty,® 
And no appearance or desirableness;* 


3 Despised and forsaken of men, 


A man of sorrows and?® grief." 


4 Verily our griefs he bore, 


And our sorrows, he" carried them; 
But we regarded him as stricken, 
Smitten of God and afflicted; 


5 But he was one pierced because of our transgressions, 


Crushed because of our iniquities, 
The chastisement for our peace was upon him, 
And by his stripes there was healing for us. 


1Verse 8 is a doublet of 6d f., separated by the pentameter lines 7, beginning another 


section of the pentameter poem; see p. 102; 6f is the same as 8cd, save that the former is 
pentameter, with the closing two beats nnn x ΡΣ 2 the latter two trimeters, the 
last being 9375 sq> Sy Ww. The pentameter poem extends through 51 to 52:13. 


2677", not in &; excessive use of synonymous verbs, and makes the line too long; so 


Budde, Duhm, Marti. 


Cen) jn ban | oy ὩΣ VWWNS5, tetrameter gloss (so Duhm), making the strophe too long. 
‘mown , 4, A., ‘disfigurement;’ it is better to read with Geiger now, Hoph. ptep. 
ssn explanatory gloss, making the line too long; so also o-> “ 

6 The suff. 3 is an interpretative gloss. 

TAI PAT makes the line too long; read 47 . 

8 ἼΓΠ  ὩΓΊΩ , assimilated to the gloss, WAND after it was inserted as a dittograph of 


ΙΝ. We should read MTA with &. 


9y"3" is an expansive gloss, making the line tetrameter, 


IAW NS Mra. W0' OD AMO is an expansive gloss, making the 


strophe just so much too long. 


14 makes the first line too long and is required in the second for measure. 


for explanation against the measure. 


10 


11 


IND TMD? ΝΘῚ is a doublet, and ΙΝ a gloss to emphasize the conclusion. 
2By haplography 43 was omitted before 943, and subsequently ἜΜ was inserted 


8525 , error for ond : cf. &. 


osns makes the first line too long. It is a relic of a lost line which the strophe needs 
for completeness; I venture to restore it as above. 
before ΣᾺ DN; or else, more probably, MN is an error for it. 


An Awazysis or IsataH 40-62 


We all like sheep strayed away, 

Each to his own way turned, 

And Yahweh caused to light on him 
The iniquities of us all. 

He was harrassed and he was afflicted, 
And he opened not his mouth, 

As a sheep that is led to the slaughter, 
And as a ewe before her shearers.’ 


From oppression and from judgment he was taken away, 
And among his contemporaries, who was considering 
That he was cut off from the land of the living, 

Because of (our)? transgressions, smitten to (death) ?* 
And his grave was assigned with the wicked, 

And with the rich in his martyr death; 

Though he had done no violence, 

And there was no deceit in his mouth. 


Yahweh was pleased to crush him, 
(Yahweh)! made him weak (unto death); 
He maketh himself a trespass offering, 
He will see a seed, ὃ 
He will prolong days, ——— 
And the pleasure of Yahweh will prosper,’ 

On account of his own travail he will see, 

(The just one)’ will be satisfied with his knowledge. 


5 


My servant will justify many, 

And their iniquities he will carry; 

Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, 
Among’ the strong will he divide spoil; 

Because he exposed his life,’ 

And with transgressors was numbered, 

And he did bear the sin of many, 

And for transgressors‘ interposes.” 


Dw" for DWM which originated from regarding D5 as subject. 


5 These are broken lines for emphasis; see 40: 21; 46:1; 48:8. 


7 Pp’ i belongs here as subject of verb, and not in the next line as in MT. 
8" makes the line too long; read 9 asin the parallel ὩΣ. 


9 mind is an expansive gloss. 


10 ὩΣ Ὁ 9 has two tones. 


11Chap. 54 resumes the pentameter poem; see p. 105, 


ΤΥ has fallen out by haplography 
Then we should read 


693595) is a gloss, not in &. 


CHARLES AUGUSTUS BrIGas 89 


55: 1 Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye,! 
And he that hath no silver,? 
Come γα," buy without silver, 
Without price* wine and milk. 
2 Why will ye weigh silver, 
And your labor for that which satisfieth not ? 
Hearken diligently unto me,' 
And let your soul delight itself in fatness.’ 


3 I will make an everlasting covenant,’ 
The sure deeds of kindness toward David. 
4 Behold, a witness to the peoples I gave him, 
A prince and commander to the peoples; 
5 Behold, a nation thou knowest not thou wilt call, 
And they* that know thee not unto thee will run, 
Because of Yahweh thy God, 
And for the Holy One of Israel, for He hath beautified thee. 


6 Seek ye Yahweh while He may be found, 
Call ye upon Him while He is near;'° 
7 And He will have compassion, will abundantly pardon. 
8 For My thoughts are not your thoughts, 
And your ways are not My ways. 
9 As" the heavens are high above the earth, 
So high are My ways above your ways, 
And My thoughts above your thoughts." 


10 As‘ the rain descendeth from heaven, 
And thither returneth not, 
Except it hath watered the earth, 


Ip wad is a gloss, making the line too long, a premature statement, and not suited 
to the context, which gives wine and milk, rather than water. 


24554 172W 555 . This line is a gloss; eating is not the conception of this piece, 
but only drinking. 


3The ἢ is an erroneous connective. 

4The ἢ in Ν 52 makes the line too long, as it is necessary for measure to connect 
3153 by makkeph to ΤΩ. 

5 ond xb. is a gloss by the same hand as that above in verse 1; see note 2. 

6370 abel is another gloss by the same hand. 

7 Verse 3ab is a gloss (so Duhm, Cheyne, Marti), merely a doublet of 2c. 

855 is an explanatory gloss. 9555 is a gloss of interpretation. 


10 Verse 7 is a gloss, as Duhm, Cheyne, Marti recognize; except that the closing line of 
the tristich must be there. This probably consisted of the verbs mibo> mala ΞΕ. 


1177 DN is a gloss, out of the measure. 

2Jn W234 35. read with versions, [JAAD ; cf. Ps. 103: 11. 

15°F 20MND has two tones. ᾿ 

1499 “WND 7D is a prosaic amplification of an original AID; SDT is a gloss. 


90 An ANALYsis oF IsataAH 40-62 


And made it bring forth and sprout and give seed,’ 
55:11 So My word, that goeth forth from My mouth,” 

Will not return unto Me empty, 

Except it hath accomplished’ what I please, 

And it hath prospered in the thing whereunto I sent it. 


122 For with joy will ye go forth, 
Amidst shouts of welfare* from the mountains will ye be conducted ; 
And the hills will break forth in ringing cries, 
And the trees® of the field will clap their hands ; 
13 Instead of the thorn will be’ the fir tree, 
Instead of the briar will be’ the myrtle tree ; 
And it will be to Yahweh for a name, 
And for an everlasting sign that cannot be cast off. 


Part V 


58:1 Proclaim® with the throat, spare not, 
As a trumpet lift up thy voice, 
And declare to My people their transgressions, 
And to the house of Jacob their sin. 
2 Yet day by day they seek Me, 
And in knowing My ways delight, 
As a nation that’ did righteousness, 
And the judgment of their God forsook not. 


They ask Me righteous judgments," 
In drawing near to God they delight. 
3 “Why do we fast” (they say) “and Thou seest not, 
Afflict ourselves and Thou knowest not?” 
In” the day of your fast ye find pleasure,” 


155x5 ond yar is a gloss of amplification. 

ΡΤ and ἌΝ are glosses, destroying the measure. 

3 ἸΌΝ PN, explanatory gloss, against the measure. 

4Ὡ ΓΙ belongs to the second line by measure and parallelism; plow must then be 
given a meaning to correspond; that can only be a shout of welcome; cf. Ps. 122:7, 8. 

sp p> is an explanatory gloss. 655 is, as often, an expansive gloss. 

7The verbs =>y5 are an unnecessary explanation, against the measure. 


8The pentameter poem begins again in chap. 56. The trimeter is not resumed till 
chap. 58. 

91 see no sufficient reason for separating this chapter from the poem. The measure 
and strophical organization are the same; and there is nothing in the piece unsuited to the 
situation of the exilic community. 


10 ΔΊΣ ΝΣ a gloss, impairing the measure. 


11 This is a phrase of Ps, 119:62, 106, 164, but not in itself a late term. Judgments is an 
early term for legal decisions of the Law. 


124") is an emphatic gloss. 
13 It is not necessary to give YDM the late sense of business; ef. 53:10. 


58; 


CHARLES AuUGUSTUS BRIGGS 91 


And all your toilers' press; 


4 Lo, for strife and contention ye fast; 


And to smite with the fist of wickedness. 


Ye shall not fast as today, 
To make your voice to be heard on high. 


5 Is it like this,’ the fast that I choose, 


A day for one? to afflict himself? 

Is it to bow down as a rush his head, 
And sackcloth and ashes spread? 

Is it this (ye) call a fast, 

And a day of acceptance to Yahweh? 


6 (Thus saith Yahweh):* 


Is not this the fast I choose, 

To loose the bonds of wickedness, 
To undo the bonds of the yoke, 
And to let the oppressed go free, 
And that ye break every yoke? 


7 Is it not to deal thy bread to the hungry, 


And that ye bring the wandering home?? 


When thou seest one naked thou shouldst clothe him, 
And from thy flesh thou shouldst not hide thyself; 
Then will thy light break forth as dawn, 

And thy restoration speedily sprout forth; 

And thy righteousness shall go before thee, 

And the glory of Yahweh bring up the rear;° 


9 Then wilt thou call and Yahweh will answer, 


Thou wilt ery out and He will say, “1 am here.” 


If thou wilt remove from thy midst the yoke, 
The putting forth of the finger and speaking trouble, 


10 Wilt bestow on the hungry their desire, 


And the desire of the afflicted wilt satisfy, 
Thy light will rise in darkness, 
And thy glory will be as the noonday, 


τ: And Yahweh will guide thee continually, ᾿ 


And satisfy thy desire in scorched places.’ 


165 °5N9 isa. A.; ‘your toilers,’ BDB, Lexicon. 
at a4 
ΓΙ is an unnecessary explanatory gloss. 


3% is an explanatory gloss, against the measure. 
4% has λέγει κύριος, after ἐξελεξάμην, but it comes better at the beginning of the strophe, 


and is needed to complete the strophe. 


59°59 is an explanatory gloss to O97, making line too long. 
6 Cf. Is. 52:12. TEYIMEMY a. A. 


92 An ANALYsIS oF IsarAH 40-62 


Then will (Yahweh)! brace up thy strength, 
And thou wilt be as a watered garden, 
And as a spring of (living)’ waters, 
Whose waters fail not. 
58:12 And they shall* build the old wastes, 
The foundations of the generations will raise up, 
And thou wilt be called the waller up of the breach, 
The restorer of paths to dwell in.* 


61:1 The Spirit of Yahweh® is upon me, 
Because that Yahweh hath anointed me; 
To preach good tidings to the meek He hath sent me, 
To bind up the broken hearted, 
To proclaim liberty to the captives, 
And deliverance to them that are bound, 
2 To proclaim the acceptable year of Yahweh, 
And the day of vengeance of our God; 


To comfort all that mourn, 
3 To provide for the mourners of Zion, 
To give to them a head-dress, 
Instead of ashes, the oil of joy, 
Instead of mourning, the garment of praise, 
Instead of a spirit of faintness, 
Τοῦ be called terebinths of righteousness, 
The planting of Yahweh to beautify Himself. 


4 And they will build the old wastes, 
They will raise up the former desolations, 
And they will repair the waste cities, 
The desolations of generations erect.’ 
5 And strangers will feed your flocks,' 
And aliens’ sons will be your plowmen and your vine-dressers; 
6 But ye will be called the priests of Yahweh, 
Ministers of our God, will it be said.? 
ΙΓ is needed for measure and is almost necessary at the beginning of a new 
strophe. 
2 ΤΊ is needed for measure. 3127 is an unnecessary gloss. 


4 Verses 13 and 14, as Koppe, al. have observed, are a late gloss, adding something of a 
different nature after the climax has been reached. This is followed by chap. 59, which is a 
post-exilic piece, and chap. 60, which belongs to the pentameter poem. The trimeter poem 
is resumed in chap. 61. 


S55"5N, Qre and gloss, notin & ἘΠ, Luke 4:18. 
6 ἐξ , textual error for infin. abs., as often in Hebrew literature. 


ΤΠ is out of place at the beginning of verse 5; it is needed here as Hiph., 
05". 


8Transpose H°7\F and 4. 9255 is an explanatory gloss. 


61: 


10 


11 


CHARLES AuGustTus Briaas 93 


Ye will eat the riches of the nations, 

And in their glory will ye pride yourselves, 

For your shame ye will have double;! 

And I will make an everlasting covenant, 

And (your)! seed will be known among the nations, 
And (your)! offspring among the peoples, 

All that see them will acknowledge them, 

That they are the seed that Yahweh hath blessed, 


I will greatly rejoice in Yahweh, 

My soul will be joyful in my God, 

For He hath clothed me in garments of salvation, 

He hath covered me with a robe of righteousness ; 

As a bridegroom putteth on a priest’s turban, 

And as a bride adorneth herself with her jewels ; 

As the earth bringeth forth her increase, 

As a garden causeth that which is planted therein to spring forth? 


THE PENTAMETER POEM 
Part I 


Comfort ye, comfort ye My people, saith your God, 

Speak unto the heart of Jerusalem, and proclaim unto her, 

That her warfare is accomplished, that her iniquity is discharged; 

That she hath received from the hand of Yahweh double for* her 
sins. 

Hark! one proclaiming, “In the wilderness clear the way of Yahweh, 

Level in the desert (for Yahweh),‘ a highway for our God. 

Let every valley be lifted up, and every mountain and hill be 
depressed, 

And let the crooked place become straight, and the rugged place 
a plain, 

And the glory of Yahweh will be revealed, and all flesh will see,”® 

For the mouth of (Adonay)*® Yahweh hath spoken. 


Hark! one saying, “Proclaim,” and another’ saying, “ What shall I 
proclaim” ? 


1The change to third person in 7b indicates a gloss, which extends to 8d. It also occa- 
sioned the change from second to third person in 9, 


2The closing couplet is an interpreting gloss. 


355 is an amplification, against the measure. 


seed is needed for measure before the caesura. 


54717 an amplification, against the measure. 


6958, usual in this poem with 79 in such phrases, is here needed for measure. 


ΤΩΣ, massoretic error for ἜΝ, as previous participle, and so, one saying, another 
=e = 
saying. 


94 ΑΝ ANALYSIS oF ΙΒΑΙΑΗ 40-62 


“All flesh is grass, and its (splendor)! as the flower of the field; 
40: 8 (Surely)? the grass withereth, the flower fadeth; 
But the word of (Yahweh)* our God standeth forever.” 
9 Upon a high mountain go up, thou that bringest good tidings to‘ 
Zion; 
Lift up with power thy voice, thou that bringest good tidings to+ 
Jerusalem; 
Lift up, fear not, say to the cities of Judah, 
10 Behold your God, behold Adonay Yahweh, 
As a strong one He cometh, with His arm ruling for Him; 
Behold, His wage is with Him and His recompense before Him. 


11 As a shepherd He will feed His flock, with His arm gather it, 
The lambs in His bosom? He will lift up, those that give suck He 
leadeth.® 
41:11 They’ shall be shamed and they shall be confounded, they that are 
incensed against thee; 
They shall be as nothing and they shall perish, the men of thy 
strife; 
12 Thou wilt seek them and thou wilt not find them, the men of thy 
contention; 
They shall be as nothing, and as a thing of naught, the men of thy 
battle; 
13 For I, Yahweh, thy God, am He® that holdeth thy right hand, 
He that sayeth to thee, “Fear not, I do help thee; 
14 Fear not, thou worm Jacob, ye men of Israel, 
I do help thee,’ even thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel.” !° 


1\0OM, error for \3\4M, used of trees elsewhere; b> ; as often, a gloss of exaggera- 
tion. 


257 VEN {ON spoils the measure, is an explanatory gloss (so Duhm, Marti); but 
jON is characteristic of this prophet. It belongs with "YM WA" in 8, to complete 
the measure. The line PY 535 {YM WI came into 7a by dittography, and is absent 
from &, which also has not 7b. In all this & is certainly correct, for there is no room 
for this material in the strophe. 

3771917 is required for good measure. 

ΕἸ and pS are not in apposition with ΓΞ. but there is an objective 
construct relation; so Lowth. 

5 pwns , by an error in the interpreting of the connection, for Ip wa : 


6These two lines are apart from previous strophe. They either represent a strophe 
which has been omitted in the combination, or, more probably, are the introductory lines 
missing to this strophe, though the two are now separated by the first section of the 
trimeter poem, 40:12—41:10; see p. 69. 


7 a , emphatic gloss. 
δῬΟΤΓΙ Ὡ should have the article as WANN. 
ΓΙ ΝΣ is a gloss, destroying the measure. 


10 The trimeter poem now begins, and continues through 41: 15—42:13; see p. 72. 


42:14 


16 


11 


44:24 


25 


26 


bo τῷ 
-: 


CHARLES AuUGUSTUS BRIGGS 95 


I have been long time’ silent. Shall I be still, shall I restrain 
myself 3 

As a woman in labor will I groan, will I gasp, will I pant 
together ; 

I will lay waste mountains and hills, and all their herbage dry up, 

And make rivers into coasts, and pools will I dry up, 

And lead the blind in a way they know not, 

In paths they know not will I make (them) tread. 

I will make darkness into light,* and rugged places into a plain ;° 

These things I do with them, and I have not forsaken them. 

They are thrust back with shame, they that trust in graven images, 

They shall be ashamed*® that say to molten images, “Ye are 


our gods.”’* 
Parr IT 
Thus saith Yahweh, thy Redeemer, He that formed thee from the 
womb: 


Tam Yahweh, Maker of all things, that stretched forth the heavens; 

Alone® I was He that spread abroad the earth. Who was with Me? 

He that frustrated the signs of praters,’? and diviners maketh mad; 

That turneth the wise men backward, and their knowledge maketh 
foolish; 

That confirmeth the word of His servant, and his counsel’ per- 
formeth; 

That sayeth of Jerusalem, “She shall be inhabited! and her temple 
I will establish;” 

That sayeth of the cities of Judah, “They shall be built, and her 
wastes I will raise up;” 

That sayeth to the deep,” “Be dry, and thy streams I will dry up;” 

That sayeth to Cyrus, “My shepherd, and My pleasure” will he 
perform.” 


1For Down read ow ἸΏ , in order to get two tones. 

2AYDN a. A.; BDB, Lexicon, ‘groan.’ 

3EMN PAIN for DSN, to complete the measure. 

soa yp> is an expansive gloss. 5 Cf, 40: 4. 

64173)" has been attached to the preceding verbs in a prosaic manner, as often, by a 
copyist, at the expense of the measure. 

7The trimeter poem now follows, and continues through 42: 18—44:23; see p. 75. 

8555 goes with this line, and not with the previous one as in MT, 

9H, n.m. pl., ‘praters,’ false prophets; elsewhere in this sense Jer. 50:36, and in 
the sense of ‘empty, idle talk’ Is. 16:6; Jer. 48:30; Job 11:3. 

10 Read yy instead of shel ty al MY, which is too long for the measure. 

11 The line is defective here. Its true complement is 28, %O 5-4 ; only it should 
correspond with the synonymous line and be SON. The last line, which distinguishes the 
strophe, was added as a climax with ἼΩΝ for ἌΝΕΥ, dependent upon Cyrus, and 
war for ΔΊ. 

12 mpax a. A., error for “3 : 13 b>, as often, an expansive gloss. 


96 ΑΝ ANALYSIS OF IsaIAH 40-62 


45:1 Thus saith Yahweh (the true God)! to His anointed, Cyrus, 
Whose? right hand I have holden to subdue before him nations,’ 
To open‘ the two-leaved door and gates that cannot be shut: 

2 I before thee will go and (the mountains)’ will make level, 
Doors of bronze will I break and bars of iron;° 
3 And I will give’ treasures of darkness and treasures hidden in secret 
places; 
That thou mayest know that I am Yahweh, 
He that calleth (thee)* by thy name, the God of Israel; 
4 For the sake of Jacob My servant and Israel My chosen, 
I proclaimed thy name, and have given thee thy title,’ though thou 
didst not know Me. 


5 I am Yahweh, and there is none else, beside Me there is no God. 
(I proclaim thy name” and give thee thy title), though thou dost not 
know Me, 
6 That they may know from sunrise and from sunset, 
That there is none beside Me, I am Yahweh and there is none else; 
7 (1)" that form light and that create darkness, 
(I)" that make peace and create distress, 
I, Yahweh, that do all these things. 
8 Drop down ye heavens from above, and let the skies pour down 


righteousness, 

Let the earth open, (that) salvation and righteousness (may shoot 
forth)” 

Let it cause them to sprout forth together; I, Yahweh, have created 
it? 


ip Ν ΤΙ (ἃ, needed for measure. 
205N, a gloss, as often. 


3TIMDN ὩΠ95 “57°05 is an expansive gloss, changing the construction of the 
sentence. 


4 spd , a repetitious gloss. 

5659475, error for 292477, &, Lowth. 
6945, an interpretative gloss. 

7 ἼΞΝ gloss. 

8512 , needed here for measure rather than in 4. 
9" consec. is necessary here after NPS) i 


10 This line is defective. It seems to be a reiteration of 4b; in that case it seems proper 
to add T7AWA XPS , and to regard FINS as an error for τΊ9 9 ὲς Ξ 
Ἐπ πὸ cicses 
11 Another tone is needed for measure, probably "38, which would be an appropriate 
emphasis in these two lines. 


124"\55, cannot be satisfactorily explained; it is probably an error for 4D"), with 
Ἵ subordinate; so Marti. 


13 The suff. Ἢ is a misinterpretation, referring to Cyrus; the original was doubtless, as 
often, without suffix. 


CHARLES AuGusTUS BRIGGS 97 


45: 9 Woe to one that striveth with Him who formed him—a potsherd 
among the potsherds of earth! 
Shall one’ say to Him that formed him, “ Why? makest Thou Thy 
work without power?” 
10 Shall one say to a father “Why? begettest thou,” and to a mother 
“Why travailest thou?” 
11 Thus saith Yahweh, the Holy One of Israel, He that formed thee, 
The former things thou mayest‘ ask Me, and concerning’ the work 
of My hands thou mayest command Me; 
12 I have made the earth, and man° I created; 
My‘ hands stretched out the heavens, and their host I commanded; 
13 I have raised him up in righteousness, and his’ ways I will level, 
He shall build My city and My captives set free, 
Not for price,’ saith Yahweh Sabaoth. 


14 Thus saith Yahweh: The toil of Egypt shall be thine,” 
And the traders” of Cush after thee will go in chains," 
And the Sabeans, men of stature, unto thee will come; 
They will come over,'* and unto thee will bow down, and unto thee 
will supplicate: 
“Surely in thee is ’El, and there is no one else, no god.” 
15 Surely an ’El that (giveth shelter) is the God of Israel,” 


isan is a gloss of interpretation, making the line too long. 
2719 here is not ‘what’ but ‘ why.’ 
3677" ΤΑΝ is used in the figurative sense; s isa gloss of interpretation. The several 


emendations suggested, based on the ordinary meaning of ὩΣ, are awkward and 
difficult. 


a ΝΣ is an error for sbrwn ; so Hitzig, Cheyne, Driver, Marti, in accordance 
with the verb that follows; the initial [} was omitted by haplography. 
5955 by is an expansive gloss (so Duhm, Cheyne, Marti), making the line too long. 


omnby or ΩΝ 2 must be a gloss, for the line is too long; probably the former, for 
there are two verbs in the parallel line. 


795N is an emphatic gloss, making one tone too many. 

8 Ὁ5 , 8 510885 of intensification, as often. 

9 ΓΠΊΣ xd4 is a gloss of amplification, destroying the measure. 

10 Σαβαώθ of & makes the line too long, though adopted by Duhm, Cheyne, Marti. 

11 The difficulty of these verses is due to the prosaic combination of the subjects, which 
were originally in synonymous lines; these I restore to their proper poetic position. 

AMO is a massoretic error for ΠΟ , ‘traders,’ as the verb requires. 

13 As Ἢ &, attached to this verb, not i the following as in MT. 

14This verb is required for measure, as 32 &B Theod.; though omitted by Duhm, 
Cheyne, Marti, after GNA®. 

15 ose 3 G, is a gloss of interpretation, disturbing to the thought and the measure. 
The latter difficulty i is not removed by WIN . suggested by Klostermann, Cheyne, Marti. 
YW is not in GB, and is omitted by Duhm; but it is in (αλλ, There seems no especial . 
propriety for its use, although it will not disturb the measure if we connect Jos and be 
as one tone. This does not, however, commend itself. ΩΣ. Hithpa. ‘one hiding Him- 
self,’ gives a majestic thought, more appropriate, however, to the theodicy of Job, than to 


98 An ANALYysis oF IsaraH 40-62 


45:16 They shall be ashamed, and indeed confounded, all that rise up 
against Him;' 
Together they are gone into confusion, the gravers of images. 
11 Israel is saved by Yahweh with an everlasting salvation. 
Ye shall not be ashamed, and ye shall not be confounded, unto ever- 
lasting perpetuity. 


18 Thus saith Yahweh, Creator of the heavens,’ 
He that is God, Former of the earth and its Maker, 
He that established it, not as a waste created it, 
To be inhabited formed it, I, Yahweh, than whom there is none else:* 
19 Not in secret did I speak, in a place of a land of darkness, 
I said not to the seed of Jacob, “In a waste seek Me.” 
I, Yahweh, am one that speaketh what is right, that declareth equi- 
table things. 
29 Assemble yourselves and come, draw near‘ the escaped of thenations. 
They have no knowledge, that carry the wood of their graven images, 
And they that make supplication unto a god that cannot save. 


21 Declare ye, and bring them near, yea, let them take counsel together; 
Who hath made this heard from ancient times, from of old hath 
declared it? 
Is it not I, Yahweh, than whom there is no God else beside Me, 
A righteous God and Savior, than whom there is none else? 
22 Look unto Me and be saved, all the ends of the earth, 
For I, God, than whom there is none else, by Myself have sworn;° 
23 That which is right has gone forth from My mouth, a word not to 
return, 
That to Me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear (saying), 
24“In*® Yahweh are righteous deeds and strength, unto whom men shall 
come,’ 


our prophet, whose God is a God revealing and glorifying Himself. There has probably 
been a dittography of [), and we should read 40% and then we get the appropriate 
idea of a God ‘ giving shelter’ to His people. 

1Q& πάντες οἱ ἀντικείμενοι αὐτῷ implies wap b>, which is doubtless correct (so Duhm) ; 
the P and “9 have been omitted between 5 and 4, and so 55 οὗ # arose. The 
yanipn"s =D of Cheyne is too long for the measure, and could not have been easily 
reduced to 855. 

2These lines are all good pentameters. Difficulty is found by Duhm, Cheyne, Marti 
because of misinterpretation. 

3 This is a relative clause. 457" is a gloss of intensification. 

559932 3 belongs by measure to this line, not to the next as in MT; but it is 
necessary to explain the previous clause as relative, and this line as introducing the next. 

6Verse 24 is disturbed at the beginning by "WAN 5, which is a conflation of two 
readings, ard and ΔΝ, both of which glosses are implied by the context, for these 
two lines are words of those that come to Yahweh. WN is also a prefix of intensification. 


τὴ oy SD WAN isa gloss from 41:11. 


CHARLES AUGUSTUS BRIGGS 99 


45:25 In Yahweh will be justified and will boast themselves all the seed 
of Israel.’’? 


48:17 Thus saith Yahweh, thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel, 
Iam Yahweh thy God, that leadeth thee in the way, 
18 And thy peace® shall be as a river, and thy righteousness as the 
waves of the sea, 
19 And as the sand shall be thy seed, and the offspring of thy bowels ; * 
It will not be cut off, and the name° will not be destroyed from 
before Me, 
2 Go forth from Babylon, flee from the Chaldeans with the voice of 
shouting, 
Declare ye, make it heard,’ bring it forth unto the ends of the earth,' 
“Yahweh hath redeemed Jacob,’ they do not thirst ; 
2 Inthe wastes He made them go, water from the rock He made flow, 
And He cleft the rock and the waters gushed out for them.” "1 


Parr III 


49:14 And she said," “Yahweh hath forsaken me, and Adonay hath for- 
gotten me,” 
1% Can a woman forget her suckling child, that she should not have 
compassion on the son of her womb? 
Yea, these may forget, yet will I not forget thee; 
16 Behold, upon my palms I have graven thee, thy walls are before Me.” 


1The trimeter poem is resumed in chap. 46; see p. 81. Chap. 47 is an independent 
taunt song; see p. 82. The trimeter poem is resumed in chap. 48, and continues through 
verses 1-16. 


adaynmd ΤΩ is a gloss from the same hand as "712705 mawpn rnd, 18a; 
these betray a later conception of Yahweh as teacher, and impair both lines, aby was 
added in the same spirit. 


3} is an error for 777] ; so also in 19, 


«ΩΣ WA makes the line too long. The latter is a. A., and seems to be ditto- 
graph of the former. 


δ, Δ, & IAW. As usual in such cases both suffixes are interpretations of a noun 
without suff. 


6 NT makes the line too long; it was needless, 
ΤΩΝ is as usual in such contexts a gloss. 


84157 does not suit the plural verb and is a needless explanatory gloss. \NvAX x47 
belongs with this line, not with the next as in MT. 


pal) belongs to the last line, and not to the previous one as in MT, 


10 Verse 22 is the refrain of the final work, when its three great sections had been con- 
solidated. The trimeter poem is then resumed, and continues through 49:1-13; see p. 84. 


11 yx is an explanatory gloss, making the line hexameter. 


12 ὩΣ is a gloss of emphasis. 


100 An ΑΝΑΙΥΒΙΚ oF IsataH 40-62 


49:11 Thy (builders)! make haste, thy destroyers? from thee shall go 
forth. 
is Lift up round about thine eyes, and see, all of them, 
They do gather together, they are come to thee, (all of them),*? as I 
live;* 
With all of them® as an ornament wilt thou clothe thee, and gird 
thee as a bride. 
19 For thy desolate places and thy wastes and thy land of ruins— 
Now? shalt thou be too straight for the inhabitants, and they that 
swallowed thee up will be afar off. 


20 Again will they say in thine ears, the children of thy bereavement, 
“The place is too straight for me, give place that I may dwell;” 

οι And thou wilt say in thine heart, “Who hath born me these? 

Seeing I am bereaved and barren,’ these, who hath brought them 

up? 

Behold I was left alone, these, where were they?” 

(For) thus saith Adonay, Yahweh, (thy Savior):' 

Behold, I will lift wp unto the nations My hand, 

(Behold),$ unto the peoples will I raise My banner,’ 

23 And kings will be thy nursing fathers, and their princesses thy 


nursing mothers,’ 


And thou wilt know that it is I, Yahweh, in whom they" that hope 
will not be ashamed.” 


bo 
bo 


LPIA error for IZA, as & Β΄ T, Saadia, Lowth, Eichhorn, 

Ba fa ΓῺ is a dittograph of POW , which alone suits the measure. 

3 55 is needed for measure in this line, and is favored by its use in the previous and 
following lines. 

4==15 ON} is here, as often in this prophet, a gloss. 

5555 is dittograph of 5 in 55 ; so also "5 in 19 after the suff, ΕΝ 

6510 55 is an expansive gloss, destroying the measure. 

7This line needs two tones; probably the introductory "3 was lost by haplography 
before 73, and wa , a usual term in such phrases. 

8These two lines cannot be trimeters on account of (37 in the first line and Se in 
the second. As they stand in ® they are tetrameter; but that is impossible in the context. 
It is easiest to regard them as pentameter, by separating bx from —2754 asaseparate tone, 
and prefixing [37 to the second line. Only in this way can we complete this strophe 
properly. It has been confused by its connection with the trimeter glosses. The same idea 
is in the pentameter refrain 62:12. 

9Two trimeter lines of gloss follow, with the late word wun, elsewhere Neh. 5:13, 
Ps, 129:7. ᾿ 

10 Two trimeter lines follow which represent the haughty, vindictive temper of later 
Judaism, entirely out of accord with the ideas of the noble-minded author of this penta- 
meter. 


1 ἸΌΝ, interpretative gloss, The relative clause is sufficiently distinct without it. 


12 Verses 24-25 are a gloss of a vindictive character, like 23), not at all in the spirit of our 
prophet. 


CHARLES AuGustTus BriGcas 101 


50: 1 Thus saith Yahweh, thy Redeemer, the mighty One of Jacob:! 
“Where then is the bill of divorce of your mother, wherewith I put 
her away;? 
Or which of My creditors is it to whom? I sold thee? 
Behold, for your iniquities were ye sold, and for your transgressions 
was she put away.’ 
2 Wherefore I came and there was none, I called without one to 
answer.’ 
Is the hand of (Yahweh )5 so much shortened that it cannot ransom, 
Or is there not in (Yahweh )* power to deliver? 
By® My rebuke I dry up the sea, rivers’ of the wilderness, 
Their fish stink, because there is no water, and die of thirst. 
3 I clothe the heavens with blackness, and sackcloth® their covering.” 


4 Adonay Yahweh hath given me the tongue of the taught, 
To know in season,’ a word He stirreth up for me. 
In the morning” He stirreth up" for me to hear as the taught, 
5 Adonay Yahweh hath opened for me an ear, 
And I do not rebel, backward I do not turn. 
6 My back I have given to the smiters, and my cheek to them that 
pluck out the beard, 
My face I have not hid from shame and spittle. 
7 (Behold) Adonay Yahweh is helper to me, 
Therefore’? I have put my face as a flint," 
And I know that I shall not be ashamed, I shall not be confounded. 


1 aps” “738 TONS belongs in this line, and not in the previous chapter as in 38. 
2" is, as often, a prosaic addition, impairing the measure of both lines. 
35%AN is an explanatory gloss, at the expense of the measure. 

4% with PR in this line, assimilation, against the measure. 

595 for FW TW, required by measure; so "3 for FI. 

617] is an emphatic gloss, against the measure. 


7H DN makes the line too long; it is an erroneous interpretation, against the context; 
MAW is a second object to ΓΝ and should be in the construct state, not absolute as 
in MT. 


8B WN is a gloss, making the pentameter into a hexameter. 


95 a, A., error for ny> of &, parallel with “p2a ; so Oort. Moreover, 32" PN 
is not in &, but τοῦ γνῶναι ἡνίκα Selec arn λόγον. ἔθηκέν μοι πρωί. HI seems to be a dittography 
of “795, and MN a later prosaic addition; > should follow "3" the first time as well 
as the second. 


10 “pas repeated by dittography. 
11 JTS came in by error from the next line. 
124 is not appropriate here; read [3 for measure. 


13 One yoy is a dittograph —it is used but once in &—and "ΠῺΣ" xd belongs to 
the last line of the strophe. It is premature here. 


“MK éballamis has two tones. 


102 An ANALYSIS OF ΙΒΑΙΑΗ 40-62 


50: 8 Near is He that justifieth me, who will contend with me? 
Let us stand up together, who is mine adversary?’ 
9 Adonay? Yahweh helpeth me, who? will condemn me? 
Behold all of them as a garment wax old, the moth shall eat them. 
10 Who is among you that feareth Yahweh, that hearkeneth to His 
voice,* 
That doth walk in dark places and have no brightness? 
Let him trust in the name of Yahweh, and stay upon his God. 
11“ Behold all of ye that kindle fire, that (light) firebrands,° 
Go ye unto the flame of your fire and among the firebrands ye 
kindled; 
From My hand have ye this, in a place of pain shall ye lie down.” 


51:1 Hearken unto Me, ye that pursue righteousness, ye that seek Yahweh; 
Look unto the rock whence ye were hewn, and unto the quarry® 
whence ye were digged, 
2 Look unto Abraham your father, and unto Sarah who bare you: 
For when he was but one I called him, and blessed him’ and made 
him many. 
3 For Yahweh hath comforted Zion,’ all her waste places; 
And made her wilderness as Eden, and her desert as the garden of 
Yahweh; 
Joy and gladness will be® therein, thanksgiving and the sound of 
melody.” 
7 Hearken unto Me, ye that know righteousness, in whose mind" is 
My law: 
Fear ye not the reproach of frail man, and at their revilings be not 
dismayed; 
6 Verily My salvation shall be forever, and My righteousness will not 
be dismayed.” 


τ Ὡς 59 is an expansive gloss, at the expense of the measure. 
247 has come up from the line below. 
357 is an emphatic gloss, against the measure. 


yy Dpa makes the line too long. It is a mistaken interpretation of i1p3, and 
the suffix refers to Yahweh. The servant is not in this context. 


STN is improbable; it is probably an error for mes y-) %$; so Secker, Dillmann, 
Duhm, Cheyne; BDB, Lexicon. 

6 napa a, A,, ‘excavation, quarry,’ defined by the gloss 43. 

7 The last two verbs should be with ἢ consec., and not simple ἢ as in MT. 

8D) is repeated, against the measure. 

INYO, explanatory gloss, against the measure, 


10 Verses 4-6 are a trimeter insertion belonging to the trimeter poem; only its last line 
is the proper conclusion of this strophe, having been transposed with the similar line of the 
other poem, now 8b; see p. 86. 


119 is an interpretative gloss. 
12 Verse 8 also belongs to the trimeter poem. 


CHARLES AuGuUSTUS Bria«s 103 


50: 9 Awake, awake, put on strength, arm of Yahweh, 
Awake as in days of old, in generations of olden times! 
Art Thou not that which did tear in pieces Rahab, that pierced the 
dragon? 
10 Art Thou not it that did dry up the sea, the waters of the great deep; 
That made the depths of the sea a way for the redeemed topass over?! 
12 I? am He that comforteth (thee),* of whom‘ art thou afraid? 
Of frail man that dieth, of a son of man that is given over as grass? 
13 And yet thou didst forget® thy Maker that stretched out the heavens 
and founded the earth; 
And wast in dread continually all day long because of the® oppressor; 
He aimed’ to destroy, but where is the fury of the oppressor ὃ 


17 Arouse thyself, arouse thyself (Zion),’ rise up, Jerusalem, 
Who hast” drunk at the hand of Yahweh the cup of His fury, 
The bow] of the cup of staggering hast drunken, hast drained." 

19 These two things have befallen thee, who bemoans thee? 
The crushing ” of famine and sword, who" comforteth thee?" 

21 Therefore hear now," thou afflicted, drunken, but not with wine; 

22 Thus saith'® Yahweh, thy God, that pleadeth the cause of His people; 
Behold I have taken from thy hand the cup of staggering, 
The bow] of the cup of My fury thou shalt not again drink," 

23 And I will put it in the hand of those that afflict thee,!’ (in the hands 

of them that oppress thee).'® 


1 Verse 11 is a marginal gloss from 35:10. 

2555 once only in (τ, the other is a dittograph, against the measure. 

3 The suffix §5 is an error for ‘{, sing. The Ὥ belongs with "74, as "AA. 

4™N is a dittograph of the verb "N39, and ἢ is an assimilation to the next verse. 
5 ΓΙ is a gloss, against the measure; & θεόν, 

6AM is a gloss, assimilated to the next line. 

TION, gloss of interpretation. 


8 Verses 14-16 are a composite gloss; 15 from Jer. 31:35. The wholeis out of connection, 
and cannot be brought into strophical organization or connection. 


9 qs is needed for measure. 10™\IDN gloss, as often. 
11 Verse 18 is a gloss, interrupting the thought by a change to the 3d person. 


12 MT gives four things in place of the two of the previous line, which is impossible; 
“I! is here, as in 60:18 an explanatory gloss to the less common ΔῚΣ, and the latter must 
be taken as construct before 3957. 


IS“WATTIN is error for ‘T7737 of & and other versions. 


14 Verse 20 is a gloss, enlarging upon the sufferings at the destruction of Jerusalem, 
interposing, and weakening the force of the direct antithesis of 21. 


15 NT is an explanatory gloss, at the expense of the measure. 
16 ΤΑΣ Πὲς, not in (τ, makes the line too long. 
17359 is an emphatic gloss, against the measure. 


18 (τ has tov ταπεινωσάντων σε, and implies 793179 “1. (cf. Lam. 1:5, 12), which must 
have fallen out by haplography. 


19 Verse 280 is an expansive gloss with a strain of vindictiveness. 


104 An ANALYsIS oF ΙΒΑΙΑΗ 40-62 


52: 1 Awake, awake, put on thy strength, O Zion, 
Put on thy beauty,' O Jerusalem, the holy city, 
For there shall no more come into thee’ the uncireumcized and the 
unclean. 
2 Shake thyself from the dust, arise, O captive,’ Jerusalem, 
Loose thyself‘ from the bonds of thy neck, O captive daughter of 
Zion; 
8 For thus saith (Adonay)* Yahweh (thy God), 
For nought thou’ wast sold, and without silver wilt thou be 
redeemed.’ 
7 How beautiful on the mountains the feet of him that telleth good 
tidings, 
That proclaimeth peace, that telleth good tidings,’ that proclaimeth 
the victory, 
That saith to Zion (“It is well);° thy king doth reign” ! 


8 Hark, thy watchman lift up,’ together they ring out; 
For eye to eye they see when Zion returneth,” 
9 Break forth, ring out together, ye wastes of Jerusalem, 
For Yahweh hath comforted His people, hath redeemed Jerusalem. 
10 He" hath made bare His holy arm in the eyes of” the nations, 
And all the ends of the earth do 8661 the victory of our God. 
11 Depart ye, depart ye, go forth,“ an unclean thing touch not; 
Go forth from her midst, be ye clean that bear the vessels of 
Yahweh ; 
12 For ye shall not go forth in haste, and in flight shall ye not go, 
For He that goeth before you and He that bringeth up the rear is 
the God of Israel.” 


14555) is an explanatory gloss, unnecessary and against the measure. 
ὩΣ, a gloss of emphasis, as often. 
35510 , inappropriate to the context, isanerrorfor 73 ; so Oort, Budde, Duhm, al. 


4Ketib IMMDMM is improbable; read 9AMDMM with Qré and versions; Hithp. only 
ι ere. The preposition ja has then been omitted by haplography. 


5This short line needs enlargement by the usual divine names of this author, "34N 
1 nd ‘TTON. 
6 The change to 2d plur. is improbable; it is an erroneous change; read 2d sing. 


7 Verses 4-6 are a gloss (so Duhm, Cheyne, Marti), because of style, historical reference, 
and repetitious character. 


83D has been by error transposed from next line where it is needed for measure. 
op is an unnecessary explanatory gloss. 

10771" was inserted as an erroneous interpretation. 

114791" , a gloss of interpretation. 

12 b> , gloss. 

18 ΝΣ, a prosaic gloss. 

4D, more precise designation of place, but a gloss. 

15 The trimeter poem now is resumed, and it continues through 52: 13—53: 12. 


54: 1 


10 


CHARLES AvuGuUSTUS BRIGGS 105 


Part IV 


Ring out, O barren, thou that didst not bear, saith Yahweh.! 

Break forth, ring out, ery aloud, thou that didst not travail with 
child; 

For more are the children of the desolate than the children of the 
married; 

Enlarge the place of thy tent, and thy curtains’ stretch out;* 

Spare not, lengthen thy cords, thy stakes strengthen; 

For on the right and on the left thou wilt break forth with thy seed ;* 

It will inherit the nations and make desolate cities inhabited. 

Fear not for thou shalt not be ashamed, and thou shalt not® be 
confounded; 

Thou® wilt not display shame, the shame of thy youth thou wilt 
forget, 

And the reproach of thy widowhood thou wilt not remember any 
more.’ 


ΑΒ a wife forsaken and grieved,’ Yahweh calleth thee, 

And a wife of youth when she is refused, saith thy God. 

In a little moment I forsook thee, but in” compassion will I gather 
thee; 

In wrath" I hid My face for a moment from thee, 

But in everlasting kindness I have compassion on thee, saith thy 
Redeemer.” 

I sware!* that the waters of Noah should not pass again over the earth, 

So I sware that I will not be wroth with thee, nor rebuke thee. 

For the mountains will depart and the hills be removed, 

But My kindness will not depart, and the covenant of My peace 
will not be removed, 

Saith He that hath compassion on thee,” O thou afflicted, tempest- 
tossed and not comforted.” 


ΙΓ “ON belongs here to complete the line, and not at end of the second line, 
where it is out of measure. 


aro w , not in &, makes the line too long, and is an evident gloss, 
347)" is improbable; read WP with & and other versions. 


42 ΤΟ belongs in this line according to the measure, and should be without ἢ. MT 
has made a misinterpretation. 


55x is an evident error of transposition for xd , as with the preceding verb. 
655) twice in this line, mistaken insertions. 


7 Verse 5 is a gloss of emphasis not needed here, 855) is a dittograph. 
975, an unnecessary explanatory gloss. 10 pos , a gloss of emphasis, 
law, «.A., dittograph of ΧΡ ; so Duhm, Cheyne, Marti. 12994" , gloss. 

13 ἌΠΟ Ν "5 FART 7D 4 3D is an introductory gloss, spoiling the measure, 

MTNA is a gloss of closer definition. 1541919 is a gloss. 

16 ΠΤ xd ΤΌ M73) belongs here, and not in the next line as in MT. 


106 


54:11 


13 


14 


16 


17 


56: 1 


4 


5 


An Ana.Lysis oF IsaraH 40-62 


Behold, I am about to lay thy stones with kohl, 

And I will lay thy foundations in sapphires and make thy pinnacles 
rubies, 

And thy gates shall become carbuncles and’ thy borders pleasant 
stones; 

And all thy builders will be men taught of Yahweh, and great will 
be the peace of thy sons. 

In righteousness thou wilt be established’? away from oppression, 
that thou mayest not fear; 

Thou wilt be far from terror, that it may not draw near unto thee.’ 

Behold, I have created the workman that bloweth in the fire of coals, 

And he that bringeth forth a weapon for his work, a‘ destroyer to 
destroy; 

Any weapon formed against thee shall not prosper, 

And any tongue that riseth up against thee, in judgment will be 
condemned.° 


Thus saith Yahweh, “Watch® for judgment and righteousness, 

For near is My salvation to come, and My righteousness to be 
revealed.”’ 

Let® not the son of the stranger say, who hath joined himself unto 
Yahweh,’ 


“Yahweh will altogether separate me from His people;”’ 


And let not the eunuch say, “ Behold I am a dried up tree,” 

Thus saith Yahweh to the eunuchs: “Those that keep My” sabbaths, 
And choose that which I delight in, and hold fast to My covenant; 
I will give to them in My house and in My walls a share, 

And a name will I give them" better than sons and daughters, 

An everlasting name which cannot be cut off.” ” 


155 , as often, an intensive gloss. 


255m" belongs to the next line to complete the measure. It should, however, in that 
context be ‘pm ; so Graetz, Cheyne, Marti. 

3 Verse 15 is a gloss; so Duhm, Marti. 

49HN733 DSN is a dittograph from the line above. 

5 The remainder of this verse is a gloss, as Duhm and Marti have observed. Chap. 55 is 
part of the trimeter poem; see p. 89. 

641) not in the sense ‘ observe,’ parallel with WY, which is against the context, 


for “VY is a gloss of misinterpretation, and the next line urges that “QW be given the 
sense of ‘watch for’ the salvation that is near. 


7 Verse 2 is a trimeter tetrastich, out of connection with this piece. 


sde4 . The ἢ isaconnective with 2, but was not in the original before its insertion. 


9 ὮΝ is a gloss, as often in poetry. 
10 ἜΝ and PN are prosaic glosses. 
114 “TNS belongs here to complete the measure, and not in next line, which it injures. 


12 There is no sound reason for regarding this section relating to eunuchs and foreigners 
as post-exilic; it represents the broad-mindedness of our prophet, rather than the narrow 
exclusiveness of post-exilic Judaism. 


CHARLES AUGUSTUS BRIGGS 107 


5s: 6 And the sons of the stranger that join themselves unto Yahweh to 
minister to Him, 
And to love the name of Yahweh, to be His servants, 
Every one that keepeth the Sabbath from defiling it, and holds fast 
on My covenant, 
7 I will bring to My holy mountain and make them to be glad in My 
house,! 
Their whole burnt offerings and their peace offerings shall be for 
acceptance upon Mine altar; 
For My house will be called a house of prayer for all peoples. 
Adonay” Yahweh is about to gather the outcasts of Israel, 
Again gather unto Him, unto His assemblies.* ὁ 
57:13cdAnd (all)° that seek refuge in Me shall possess the land, 
(All that hope in Me)® shall inherit My holy mountain. 


14 One is saying,’ “Cast ye up, cast ye up, clear the way, 
Take up, (take up),’ the stumbling-block out of the way of My 
people ;” 
15 For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabits eternity :° 
The high place and the holy place I inhabit, and the contrite 
and humble in spirit ; 
To revive the spirit of the humble and" the heart of the contrite ; 
16 For not forever will I contend, nor” forever be wroth ; 
For the spirit before Me would fail, and the persons I made. 


ΤΌΣ does not belong here; it came up by ἃ copyist’s error from below. 


283 is a gloss due to the Ist sing. Vapr in the next line, a misinterpretation of an 
original infin. abs., as often. 


sssxap3> is insufficient for the last section of the pentameter. The 5 represents an 
original by . which gives the missing tone; by is needed with this word just as truly as 
in by . & properly translates this συναγωγήν. 


4A piece of an entirely different character now follows, verses 9-12, unsuited to either 
the pentameter or the trimeter poem. It must be a post-exilic insertion. Another little 
piece, 57:1, 2, follows, of a still different type, also post-exilic; and then a much longer 
piece in the style of Ezekiel, 57:3-12. The remaining two lines of this strophe then 
follow. 


555 is needed for measure. 


6 The introductory words of this line are absent. They must have been synonymous 
with those of the previous line, probably therefore, ἪΡ 5 as in 49: 23b. 


TYAN) is a mistaken massoretic pointing; read “AN as usual in these phrases; 
ms - 
see 40:6. 


8 The verb should be repeated here, as in the previous line. 
9" wp is a gloss not in the style of this prophet. 


10 ms , gloss, involving the misinterpretation ‘with,’ for the direct object as in pre- 
ceding context. 


11 ovnn> , Tepeated, at the expense of the measure. 
12 ro makes the line too long; simple ἢ sufficiently carries on the negative. 
1355N, gloss; mistaken emphasis, at the cost of the measure. 


108 


57:17 


18 


An ANALYsIS OF IsalaH 40-62 


For the iniquity of his covetousness I was wroth and smote’ him, 
hiding My face. 
When I was wroth? he went on turning off in the way of his own 
mind.* 
IT will heal him, and I will lead him, and I will restore comforts 
to him.* 
Part V 


Arise, shine, (O Jerusalem),’ for thy light is come, 

And the glory of Yahweh (thy God)* upon thee is risen; 

For behold’ darkness covereth the earth, and dense darkness the 
peoples; 

But upon thee Yahweh riseth, and His glory * appeareth; 

And nations will walk in thy light, and kings in thy brightness.’ 

Lift up round about thine eyes and see all of them.” 

They have gathered themselves together, they are come to thee, 
(all)" thy sons; 

From afar they come, and thy daughters at the side are carried; 

Then shalt thou see and be bright, and thy mind will be reverent 
and broadened; 

For the abundance of the sea will be turned unto thee, the wealth 
of the nations.” 


The multitude of camels will cover thee, the young camels of 
Midian,” 

And will fly all of them, from Sheba they will bring gold, 

And frankincense they will bear, and the praises” of Yahweh tell 
in glad tidings. 


12S should have 4 consec., carrying on previous perf.; {OM implies "35 as 
elsewhere. 

2 ΣΡ Ἢ should have ἢ consec. 

345383 WD 771 is a gloss, out of measure. 


45 Ν 5. is a late addition. This is followed by a gloss by the final editor, verses 
19-21, closing with his refrain, marking the end of the second part of the completed poem. 


5So & DB @; needed for measure. 


6 This is also needed for measure. 

7 The article is by dittography of Τῇ in MIM. 

8 oy makes the line too long. 

ΘΠ is an insertion from above; it disturbs the measure and adds nothing to the 


sense. 


10 Verse 4a = 49:18, which has influenced MT here. 
11 A word is needed for measure, probably 55 , parallel with 5 ; so &. 
12 ἼΞ N53" is attached by & to the next verse; it is ἃ gloss. 


13555, π᾿ pr., is improbable; it makes this line too long, and is needed in the next; 
read 3594, ‘fly,’ of the rapid movement of the camels. 


14% ἥξουσιν φέροντες χρυσίον, i.e., STS, this is the most probable reading. 
15 (τ σωτηρίαν, interpretation. 


CHARLES AUGUSTUS BRIGGS 109 


60: 7 All the flocks of Kedar will assemble,' the rams of Nebaioth, 
They will minister (to) thee,! ascend for acceptance on Mine altar, 
And (My house of prayer),? My house of beauty, will I beautify. 
8 Who are these that fly as a cloud, and as doves unto their lattices? 
9 Surely to Me assemble’ the ships of Tarshish first, 
To bring thy sons from afar, their silver and their gold,‘ 
To the name of Yahweh thy God, and to the Holy One of Israel.° 


10 And the sons of the foreigner will build thy walls, and their kings 
will serve thee; 
For in My wrath I smote thee, but in My favor I have compassion 
on thee. 
11 And thy gates will be open,’ day and night they will not be shut, 
To bring unto thee the wealth of nations, with their kings as 
(leaders) ;? 
12 For the nations® that will not serve thee will perish, will be utterly 
wasted. 
13 The glory of Lebanon, the fir tree, will come unto® thee, 
The plane and sherbin tree together, to beautify My sanctuary.” 
1: And the sons of thine oppressors will come unto thee, to bow down 
in homage; 
And all that despised will prostrate themselves at the soles of thy 
feet, 
And thou wilt be called the city of Yahweh," the Holy One of Israel. 


15 Instead of being” forsaken and hated, and without one to pass by, 
I will make thee an everlasting excellency, a joy of generations; 
16 And thou wilt suck the milk of nations and the breast of kingdoms; 


im is in the wrong line; it is needed in the short line instead of the suffix, for 
measure. 

2So & in 56:7; followed by Hitzig, Marti; but really both readings are necessary for 
measure. As not unfrequently, # takes one, & the other. 

3H is a gloss, disturbing the measure and sense. pe a misinterpretation for 
1p? ; Geiger, Luzzatto, al. 

45MN, an explanatory gloss. 

5 TANRD "5 , an expansive gloss, from 7. 654M, expansive gloss. 

7 ΠΑΓΊΣ . misinterpretation for pm ,» Knobel, Duhm. 

8 Ἰὰς πο" ΤΠ “i is an expansive gloss; $75 should be transferred from the 
complementary part of the line to the principal part as the only subject. 

97773 defines pon "35. Ithas been transposed by a prosaic scribe to bring 
all the trees together, at the expense of the measure. 

10 Dp. is an unnecessary gloss; 7325N s555 Dp is not in &, and there is no 
room for it in the measure or strophe. 

11 188} is a gloss, making the line too long. 

1275) is an explanatory gloss. 

13555°F is repeated, against the measure; read ΓΞ. the [| having by error 
produced the superfluous word; §555% gives a grotesque conception. 


110 


60:17 


18 


19 


20 


22 


62:2 


An ANALYSIS OF IsalAH 40-62 


And thou wilt know that I am Yahweh,! thy Redeemer, the Mighty 
One of Jacob. 

Instead of brass will I bring gold, ——— 

Instead of iron will I bring silver, 

Instead of wood (will I bring)’ brass, 

Instead of stone (will I bring) iron, 

And I will make peace thy magistracy, and righteousness thine 
exactors; 

Violence will not be heard in thy land, nor destruction in thy 
boundaries.* 


2 


And thou wilt call salvation thy walls, and praise thy gates; 

The sun will not become to thee® a light by day, 

And for brightness the moon will not be to thee (by night);° 

For Yahweh is’ become an everlasting light, and thy God thy 
beauty; 

And thy sun will not go down® or thy moon withdraw itself, 

For Yahweh will be thine,’ and the days of thy mourning will be 
ended; 

Thy people? will be righteous, forever will they inherit the land, 

The branch of My planting, the work of My hands to be beautified; 

The least will become” a thousand, and the smallest a strong nation; 

I, Yahweh, in its time will hasten (this)."»” 


And" nations will see thy righteousness, and kings thy glory, 
And thou shalt be called by a new name” that Yahweh will designate; 
And thou shalt be a crown of beauty in the hand of Yahweh, 

And (thou shalt be)" a diadem of royalty in the palm of thy God. 
Thou shalt no more be termed “ Forsaken,” 

And thy land will no more be termed “ Desolate,” 


1 The line is too long; either Www or TN is a gloss. 
2 These lines lack a tone for an emphatic metrical pause. 


3N55N was omitted by a prosaic copyist in both these lines. 
4The line is too long; 3 and “ΠΣ are glosses; see 51:19. 
5359 is a gloss, as often. 


6 This is needed for measure and antithesis; thus & ©, Lowth. 
7 Ἴ5 rr, ἃ gloss assimilated from 20. 
8 pow saxd is a gloss from 19. 


955 . an expansive gloss. 


10°49, an unnecessary gloss. 


11 The suffix is for an original PNT, needed for measure. 


12 The trimeter poem is resumed in chapter 61; see p. 92. 


13 Verse 1 is a gloss, in different measure; 3d pers. for 2d pers., a seam of the edito 
14 b> , as usual, is a gloss of intensification. 


1555 “WN is a gloss, prosaic in character. 


16 ΤΠ should be repeated for measure and greater distinctness. 


CHARLES Auaustus ΒΕΙΘΟΞ ERE 


But thou wilt be called “My delight is in thee,” and thy land 
“Married;”’ 
For Yahweh doth delight in thee, and thy land will be married. 
62: 5 As a young man marrieth a virgin, thy great Builder! will marry 
thee, 
And with the exultation of a bridegroom over a bride thy God will 
rejoice.” 
6 Over thy walls, Jerusalem, I have appointed watchmen; 
All day and all night continually they are not silent. 
Ye that remind Yahweh, let there be no rest to you, 
7 And give no rest to Him until He establish (her), 
Until He make Jerusalem a praise to the earth. 
8 Yahweh hath sworn by Hisright handand by thearm of His strength, 
“T will not give thy corn any more as a food to thine enemies, 
And aliens’ sons will not drink thy new wine, for which? thou hast 
toiled; 
9 But they that have garnered it will eat it and praise Yahweh, 
And they that have gathered ‘ it will drink it in My holy court.” 


10 Go through, go through the gates, 
Clear the way of the people ; 
Cast up, cast up the highway, 
Gather out the stones, 
Lift up a standard over the peoples.’ 

1 Behold Yahweh hath made it heard to the ends of the earth, 

Say ye to the daughter of Zion: “Behold thy salvation cometh, 
Behold His wage is with Him and His recompense before Him, 

2 And they will be called, ‘The holy people, the redeemed of Yahweh,’ 

And thou wilt be called, ‘Sought out, a city not forsaken.’” 


μι 


_ 
~) 


1 23 , though sustained by the versions, is improbable; read 722 , with Lowth. 
2 Toy is a gloss. 

3"\IUN is a prosaic gloss, as often. 

4 XIAP has two tones, 

5 These broken lines are for emphasis in metrical pauses. 

6 See 49; 22. 


en τ A ied ~ 


. 
ὶ 
᾿ ὺ 
Φ 
. 
* « 
ς at 
= 
» 
' 
- 
. A a 
5 
᾿ ᾿ 
» 
- 
. 
. 
᾿ Ξ 
- 
Β Ὁ 
- 
" 
.» 
= , 
- 
] pS - 
Ε 
x ᾽ 
Ay 
᾿ 
μ a 
46 * > bd 
Ὗ 
᾿ x i) wet 
ἮΝ ‘ J ae 2 
os ᾿ wr 
. 4. 
ΠΣ were | 
᾿ vine ae 
5 5 ᾧ ; y 
ae int 
» 4“... « aye 
be : i . Ne Au ae 
i μον, ὧν 
ἣ ΓΝ hy ea 
* 
7 t ὃ 
᾿ 
ῃ 
> 7 i hs 
‘ 
- ‘ 
- ΄ a 
: a 
5 “al Ὁ 
" i 
* β ἘΞ Η ω 
Ψ 
- my ΟἿ 
“ ie d 
- P 5 
- 
- . 
i: ͵ , 
᾿ * 
. ’ . ΩΝ Ν 
a 
+ 
δ Ὄ 
“ 5 i 
ὃ 7 
: Ἷ 
᾿ ᾽ ‘ γῇ 
‘ as ᾿ 
. ‘ - 4 ᾿ Ϊ 
. ‘ « ‘ + | 
Ε - 
. r νὰ be 
+ my on μ 


THE OMISSION OF THE INTERROGATIVE 
PARTICLE 


H. G. MITCHELL 


THE OMISSION OF THE INTERROGATIVE PARTICLE 
H. G. MircHeLyi 


The omission of the particle 4 (or ON), employed in Hebrew 
to denote a question, is discussed to some extent in all the larger 
grammars; but in none of them does it receive satisfactory treat- 
ment. Perhaps it is too much to expect the desired exactness 
and completeness in a work, good as it is in many respects, as old 
as that of Nordheimer (1840), who cites as examples arising 
‘“‘from emotion or anxiety in the speaker,” not only Gen. 3:1 and 
II Sam. 19:23, but I Sam. 16:4, and II Sam. 9:6 and 18:29, in 
two of which the absence of the particle is clearly due to textual 
corruption, while in the other it was as clearly omitted because 
the author did not intend an interrogation. It is, however, a 
little surprising that two of-these, and other similar examples, 
should be found in Kénig’s Syntax as well as in Davidson’s, and 
in the last edition of Gesenius’ Grammar (Kautzsch). In the 
following passages, cited by one or more of these authors, the 
interrogative particle should be supplied: 

Gen. 27:24 (Dav., Kon., Gesen.) 109 "22 FT MN. Read 
with Sam., as in vs. 21, TMNT. So Kittel (Biblia Hebraica, 
etc.). The necessity of supplying the particle appears when vs. 23 
is properly rendered as a parenthesis, “Now he did not recognize 
him,” etc. Then follows, “Therefore, he said, Art thou,” etc. 

I Sam. 16:4 (Dav., K6n., Gesen.), N12 pow. Read with 
G8 (7) pow. So Klostermann, H. P. Smith; on the opposite 
side, Driver, Nowack, Budde. This 9 was probably lost when 
the plural termination of the preceding verb disappeared. 

II Sam. 18:29 (Dav., Kon., Gesen.), DISwax "920 DIdw. 
Read, with 15 codd.! as in vs. 32, D{>wWm. So Klostermann, 
Nowack, Smith; contra, Driver, Budde. 

II Kings 5:26 (Dav., Kon., Gesen.), 755 129 85>. Read 
either δ, ‘nay,’ or, with D (nonne), xo. So Kittel (BH), 


1In II Sam, 18:29 and probably in I Sam. 16:4 the Massora notes pbwn as a conjec- 
ture (sebir). 


115 


110 OMISSION OF THE INTERROGATIVE PARTICLE 


Haupt. Stade prefers the latter reading. In either case the 
citation becomes irrelevant. 

Ezek. 11:3 (Kén.), D°n2 ma AMpa Xd. Read, with Ὁ 
(nonne), x55. So Cornill, Kraetzschmar; contra, Ewald. If, 
as Smend, Toy, Davidson hold, the clause should be rendered, 
not interrogatively, but categorically, of course the citation of it 
is equally unwarranted. 

Job 40:25 (41:1) (Κὅπ.), 2 ΠΩ wn" wan. Read joann, 
with Kenn. 157, and as in the following verses (except 30). So 
Kittel (BH), Dillmann; contra, Siegfried. 

There are several more passages, some of them cited by other 
authorities, which are to be reckoned as examples, not of the 
intentional omission of the particle in question, but of the cor- 
ruption of the Massoretic text. I have noted the following: 

I Sam. 30:8 (Nolde), HIN THT “ANN HAN. Read, with 
@ (εἰ), and as in the precisely similar passages 14:37 and 1 
Sam. 5:19, INT. So Kittel (BH), Wellhausen, Driver, 
Budde, Nowack, Kraetzschmar, Smith. The effect is the same if 
Klostermann’s suggestion, OX, be adopted. 

II Kings 9:19, DW. Read, with G® (ἢ) G™ (εἰ) and many 
codd. and edd., and as in vss. 18, 22, 31, DWN. So Kittel, 
Stade, Thenius. 

Ezek. 11:13 (Ew.), S85" MN Tw? ΠῸΝ 7D]. Read, as in 
the precisely similar passage 9:8, m2. So Toy (perhaps), 
Kraetzschmar. Since the preceding word ends with 1, this is 
probably a case of haplography. 

Ezek. 17:9, T>zm. Read, with G (εἰ) and 6 codd., and as 
in vs. 15, Mozmm. So Kittel (BH), Cornill, Toy, Kraetzsch- 
mar. Here again the scribe wrote 7 once instead of twice. ὦ 
has &). 

Prov. 5:16, WAIN PHI Wis". (58 has μή. Hence Ewald 
supplies bx, Frankenberg, ὌΝ or 2, Kittel favors ISB. 
Cf. Toy. 

Job 30:24 (Nolde), 7 M5" "72 ND IN. Read, with G, and 
in harmony with the following verse, nd ON or ND ON 78, and 
in clause ὃ for 21 WD, p70" xd or » ἢ xd. So Kittel; 
contra, Dillmann. 


H. G. ΜΙΤΟΗΈΤΙΗ, 11 Π 


The above examination of the passages cited by the gramma- 
rians as illustrating the omission of the interrogative particle has 
shown that there are not so many genuine examples as has been 
supposed. This might be true, and still these examples might be 
numerous. The impression one gets from the more recent gram- 
mars is that there is actually a considerable number of them. 
Konig, e.g., says that the question was expressed by means of 
(1) the interrogative tone, or (2) by the particle 1, or, less 
frequently, by DON; and gives no indication that the particles 
were used any oftener than they were omitted. Kautzsch is more 
explicit. He says (Gesen., § 150. 1) that ‘‘frequently the natural 
emphasis of the words is of itself sufficient to indicate an inter- 
rogative sentence as such.” It would have been more nearly 
correct to say, in the language of Nordheimer, that “although 
the particles and ON are usually employed in Hebrew to indi- 
cate an interrogation, still they are not absolutely necessary, and 
hence are not always introduced;” for, as a matter of fact, there 
are comparatively few cases in which the particle is omitted from 
a direct and independent single question, or, in the case of two 
or more connected interrogative clauses, from an initial question; 
and fewer still, as has been shown, in which the omission was 
intentional. The following list includes all that I have noted, 
even those due to textual corruption: 

Gen. 3:1; 18:12; (27:24); Judg. 11:9; ISam. (16:4); 21:16/15; 22:7, 15; 
(80:8); II Sam. 16:17; (18:29); 19:23/22; I Kings 1:24; 21:7; II Kings 
(5:26); (9:19); Isa. 14:10; Ezek. (11:3, 13); (17:9); Hos. 10:9; Hab. 2:19; 
Zech. 8:6; Prov. (5:16); 22:29; 26:12; 29:20; Job 2:9, 10; 11:3; 14:3; 
(30:24); 37:18; 38:18; (40:25/41:1); 40:30/41:6; Cant.3:3; Lam. 3:36, 38. 


There are 39 in all, of which at least 12—those in parenthe- 
ses—represent pretty evident scribal errors, while 4 or 5 others 
will bear further study. There are many other passages which 
have with more or less plausibility, but mistakenly, been rendered 
interrogatively and classified as instances of the omission of the 
proper particle. 1 have noted the following: ; 

Ex. 9:17 (G, Ὁ, EV), “aya ΓΘ. ΠΡ. The context 
requires that it should be interpreted as a condition, “If thou 
oppose my people.”? Cf. vs. 13. So Reuss; also Baentsch, who, 
however, unnecessarily supplies BN "2. Cf. Eccles. 1:10. 


118 OMISSION OF THE INTERROGATIVE PARTICLE 


Ex. 33:14 (Nolde, Ew., Kon., Gesen.), 1929 "2. It does not 
seem in character for Yahweh to ask whether his presence shall 
go with his people. Translate, therefore, with EV, “My presence 
shall,’ etc. So Reuss, Baentsch. 

I Sam. 11:12 (Kon., Gesen.), 17°59 >" Nw. The testi- 
mony of 2 codd. and © § @@ is to the effect that the original 
text had 85. Read, therefore, “Saul shall not rule over us.” So 
H. P. Smith; contra, Driver, Nowack. 

II Sam. 9:6 (Nord., Dav.), MWA5%. The form of the answer, 
as well as the absence of MN, indicates that David called 
Meribaal (Mephibosheth), not asked, as in the case of Siba (vs. 2), 
if he was the person so named. So EV, Nowack; contra, Reuss. 

Isa. 24:17 (Nolde), M51 MTD) Wp “pene The context 
requires a direct threat. So EV, Delitzsch, Duhm, Marti. 
Delitzsch renders excellently, Grauen, und Grube, und Garn. 

Isa. 40:19 (G, D, Kon.) wan 0: ὈΌΞΙΤ. IRfthisisa question, 
the [ may as well be recognized as the interrogative particle. 
So @, Luzzatto, Budde. If it is not so recognized, the clause is 
best rendered, ‘“‘The image—a workman cast it.” So Dillmann, 
Cheyne, Duhm, Marti; contra, Reuss. 

Jer. 6:15 (EV, Nolde), Ww FayIN "5 Ww. Elsewhere 
in the Book of Jeremiah W257 means ‘suffer defeat, or humilia- 
tion.’ Hence it is best in this case to translate as in RV marg., 
“They shall be put to shame.” So Graf, Reuss, Giesebrecht. 

Jer, 15:18 (AV, RV), SIR Wap πα i. ΤΉ ἃ 
question, it is a parallel to the one preceding, and therefore 
dependent for its interrogative character on “75. The best 
authorities render, ‘Thou art indeed to me like a deceitful brook.” 
So Reuss, Graf; similarly Duhm. In either case the passage 
does not belong in the above list. 

Ezek. 21:15/10 (EV), w°w2 IN. The words are apparently 
a part of an interpolation; cf. vs. 18/13. At any rate, they are 
utterly unintelligible. So Cornill and Toy. Kraetzschmar and 
others have undertaken to restore the text, but without finding 
traces of a question. 

Ezek. 82:2 (Ew.), M7273 ὉΠ 725. Here, also, the text is 
suspected. The simplest emendation suggested is that of Toy, 


H. G. MitcHELL 119 


ὌΝ at the beginning and n™a77 for M272. Thus emended the 
clause might be rendered, ‘Thou hast made thyself like a young 
lion!?” The present text, however, can be rendered, ‘“‘Young 
lion of the nations, thou art undone!” and this interpretation is 
adopted by Hitzig, Reuss, Smend. 

Ps. 56:8/7 (6, EV, Nolde), a> Ὁ ys by. The present 
text is contradictory. The emendation suggested by Ewald, 055 
(58:3/2) for 055, relieves the difficulty. Translate, therefore, 
‘On account of iniquity weigh to [i e., reward] them.” So Ols- 
hausen, Hupfeld, Nowack, Wellhausen. 

Job 40:24 (RV, Nolde), ‘3p T3372. The passage was 
apparently intended for a question; but the first word (or words) 
has been lost. Bickell supplies 2, derived from 7"5 of the 
preceding verse; cf. Dillmann. More probable is the reading 
NIT 2, suggested by the same word, for which it might easily 
be mistaken. So Budde, Duhm; contra, Delitzsch, Davidson. 

Eccles. 1:10 (AV, RV, Nolde), WIM 7 FN “ANY TAT we. 
Here, as elsewhere in Ecclesiastes, " introduces, not a question, 
but the protasis of a virtually conditional sentence. Render, 
therefore, ‘‘If there be a thing,” etc. Of. 2:21; 6:11; also Judg. 
6:13; II Kings 10:15. So Delitzsch, Reuss, Frankenberg. 

II Chron. 25:8 (Kén.), 248 "359 DVONT pws. The 
interrogative interpretation is adopted to avoid the contradiction 
between this and the preceding clause. That clause, however, is 
corrupt. Read, with 6, Y, “If thou thinkest to be strong in these 
things;” and then, naturally, “God will cast thee down before 
the enemy.” So Kittel (BH, SHOT), Benzinger. 

In the passages thus far cited the supposed questions have all 
been of the positive type. In the following nd is used, accord- 
ing to some authorities, in the sense of N57. 

Gen. 11:6 (Nolde), miwyd ‘vat Tw dD OFA "Ya ND. The 
context requires a statement, “There will be withheld from 
them,” etc., as the clause is commonly rendered. See EV. 

Ex, 19:23 (Nolde), ΤΣ oy Do ND. The words are 
simply a reminder to Yahweh that he has ordered bounds set 
about the mountain. They are therefore properly rendered in 
EV, ‘‘The people cannot come up.”’ 


120 OMISSION OF THE INTERROGATIVE PARTICLE 


I Sam. 14:30 (9, AV, RV marg., Nolde), 737 N37 nd ming. 
In this case it is not certain that XD belonged to the original 
text. © omits it; so Reuss, Budde, H. P. Smith. If it be 
retained, the clause is not necessarily a question, but may be 
rendered as in RV, ‘‘Now hath there been no great slaughter.” 
So Nowack. Finally, if a question was intended, the omission of 
the particle can be explained as an instance of haplography. 

II Sam. 23:5 (G, RV marg., Ew., Kon.), 58 OF "M2 13 ND. 
It does not seem probable that David would claim for himself, or 
anyone else for him, that he was an ideal ruler, like the one 
described in vss. 8 ἢ. Hence if the MT be retained, the best 
rendering is that of EV, ‘Although (or verily) my house is not 
so with God;” or that of Klostermann, who, finding here a paral- 
lel to Job 9:35, interprets ἢ9 xd as meaning ‘not after the usual 
fashion.’ Cf. Delitzsch on Job 9:35. H. P. Smith gives Ἴ9 the 
meaning ‘firm’ and δ the force of a strongly affirmative par- 
ticle; while Nowack, following Nestle (Marginalia, 27 f.), substi- 
tutes for both of them jeu The interrogative interpretation is 
preferred by Béttcher, Driver, Reuss, al. 

II Sam. 23:5 (RV marg., Ew., Kén., Gesen.), Max" Ν ὃ. 
In © this clause is connected, as the rhythm requires, with vs. 24. 
Render, therefore, ‘“‘The ungodly shall not flourish.”” So Nowack, 
H.P.Smith. Budde prefers the interrogative interpretation, but 
supplies the particle. 

Isa. 9:2, 8 (Nord.), "Maw ὨΘΊΩΓΙ Nd. The variant "5, 
found in 20 codd. is preferable to XD, but the emendation sug- 
gested by Krochmal, 75°57 for 85 “35, is now preferred to 
either. So Cheyne, Duhm, Marti. 

Isa. 10:4 (Kon.), TOR AMM yD "MdS. Such a use of "Nd2 
is without precedent. Moreover, according to Kittel, this word 
is probably an error for "M525, and the proper rendering of the 
clause, ‘“ Not to bow under the prisoner.” 

Jer. 49:9 (Ὁ, EV, Nolde), ΣΟῚ» ὙΠ ND. These words 
were borrowed, apparently, from Obad. 1:5, but it does not fol- 
low that they are here used precisely as in the original connec- 
tion. The rendering given them by © shows that they were not; 
but that originally the verse began with "5 instead of the BN of 


H. G. MircH evn 121 


Obad., and that, therefore, the author meant to say, ‘The grape- 
gathers have come to thee, and they will not leave gleanings.” 
So Graf, Reuss, Duhm. 

Jer. 49:9 (RV), OT In-mwm. The mistaken interpretation 
of the clause just discussed necessitated an equally erroneous 
rendering of its parallel. Properly translated, the latter reads, 
“They will destroy their fill.” So Graf, Reuss, Duhm. 

Hos. 11:5 (Ew., Kon.), D820 YON ON DW ND. Read, 
with @, 15 for ND, and connect it with the preceding verse. 
Verse 5 will then read, ‘‘He shall return,” etc. So Kittel, 
Nowack, Marti, Harper; contra, Reuss. 

Job 9:16 (Nolde), "DIP PIN 3 WARN ND. This is pre- 
cisely such a case as that of F298 ND in the preceding verse. 
Just as Job there says, “If I were righteous, I would not answer,” 
so he should here declare as in EV, “If I called and he answered.” 
(6® adds xd ), “I would not believe,” etc. So Delitzsch, Dill- 
mann, Reuss, Davidson, Budde, Duhm. 

Job 10:15 (Nord.), "UNI NWR ND. This is another case of 
the same kind as those in 9:15, 16. Render, therefore, “I would 
not lift up my head.” So Delitzsch, Dillmann, Davidson, Duhm; 
contra, Reuss. 

Job 13:15 (Nolde, Nord.), dmx xd. The words are trans- 
lated, “I have no hope.” So RV, Ewald, Reuss, Budde, Duhm. 
It is doubtful, however, if 5™ can properly be so rendered in 
the Book of Job. Hence, perhaps, it is safer with Dillmann, to 
translate, ‘“‘I shall not [have to] wait,” or, with the versions, 
read 15 for Nd and render, “I will wait for him.” So Davidson. 

Job 14:16 (EV, Nord., Kon.), ὭΝΩΠ Ὁ») “yawn Nd. Ὁ has 
in the preceding clause a ND, which gives to the whole verse a 
hypothetical character. So Siegfried. It is the same with 6, 
which renders this clause as if the original were "729M ,—a read- 
ing that is actually adopted by Ewald, Kittel, Dillmann, Duhm. 
Better than either of these emendations seems the interpretation 
by Reuss and Budde, according to which the first clause of the 
adopted verse is subordinate to the second in a virtually con- 
ditional sentence, which may be rendered, ‘‘Though thou num- 
beredst my steps thou wouldst not watch over [to spy out] my sin.” 


122 OMISSION OF THE INTERROGATIVE PARTICLE 


Job 23:6 (G4, Nold.), "2 Dw" NIG FR ND. Read, with RV, 
“Nay, but he would give heed to me” (Kittel, Delitzsch, Duhm) ; 
or, “Nay, let him but give heed to me.” So Dillmann, Reuss. 

Job 34:23 (Nolde), TY ὉΠ WR Ὁ» ND. The context 
requires a negation. Read, therefore, “He doth not fix,” ete. 
So, as far as the negative is involved, Delitzsch, Dillmann, Reuss, 
Budde, Duhm, al. 

Job 37:21 (Nolde), TIN 187 xd. The interrogative inter- 
pretation would give the clause a meaning the opposite of that 
required by the context. Read, with 6, “They see not [cannot 
look at] the light,” the following clauses being subordinate. So 
Ewald, Dillmann, Reuss. 

Lam. 1:12 (EV, Nolde, Ew., Kon) ὙΠ “ay 55 DSO ND. 
This is a difficult passage. Some of the versions are more intel- 
ligible. Thus © begins with of (probably to be read οἱ) πρὸς 
ὑμᾶς, Σ with ὦ ὑμεῖς, and Ἐ with O vos, i.e, DDN “AN. This, 
however, represents a corrupt text, the alphabetic scheme of the 
author requiring that the first letter be a 5. The Massoretes 
have restored this letter, but there is no indication that their id 
is to be taken in the sense of NI. In fact the meaningless- 
ness of the clause, whether interpreted as a question or a nega- 
tive, makes it doubtful whether N1> is the original reading. 
Budde suggests "58 N15, after which he would naturally read 
p2>> for 55 O5-, and Kittel (BH) substitutes for po dy wid 
the briefer 055 or ‘15. 

This concludes the list of passages that are, or have been, cor- 
rectly or incorrectly regarded as examples of the omission of the 
interrogative in independent or initial questions. There are in 
all 71; of which 12 have been found to be cases of textual corrup- 
tion, and 32 instances of mistaken exegesis, while only 27 really 
have any place in this discussion. 


Having thus shown to what extent the interrogative particle 
is actually (so far as noted) omitted in the class of questions 
described, let me now examine the explanations given in Gesenius’ 
Grammar for such omissions. One of them (8 150, 1 R) is that 
it “occurs especially before a following guttural for the sake of 


H. G. ΜΙΤΟΗΈΕΤΙ͂, 123 


euphony.” The correctness of this statement can easily be 
tested. To this end it will be necessary, first, to divide the 
whole number of cases in which, whether correctly or incorrectly 
from my standpoint, the particle is actually omitted, and show in 
just how many of them the word to which it would naturally be 
prefixed begins with a guttural, and how many times with one of 
the other letters of the Hebrew alphabet. The result of such an 
analysis is as follows: 


1. Before gutturals: 
δ Gen. 3:1; 18:12; (27:24); Judg. 11:9; (I Sam. 30:8); eee 


1:24; 21:7; Job 2: 10; 14:3: Cant..3:5; Lam.5:36. . 11 

rt Sam. 22:15; II Sam. 19:23/22; Hab. 2:19; Job 38:19. 4 
m ISam. 21:16/15; Prov. 22:29; 29:20. Bg 9 
» Job 2:9. ANE ind) at dieses Leet τὴ 1 
19 

2. Before other sounds . 

πὴ 0 11:9. 1 
5 1 Sam. νεῖ: Isa. 14: 0; Tit. 8: 6. 3 
πη τ Ghee --. 1 
ὙΠ (Prov. 5:16); Job 40: 30/41: 6. 2 
SS) (izek:! 103). 1 
5 (II Kings 5:26); (Beek. 11: 8) Ὁ Higa: 10: 9; (Joba 30 30) 4 
Wao uam, Siac... 1 
ἘΝ τον ΟΣ: ec ges 1 
Ὁ (I Sam. 16:4); (II ak 18: 29): “(I Rane 9: 19). 3 
m (Ezek. 17:9); Job 37:18 (40:25/41:1). : 3 
20 


Note that there have been included in this table, not only 
passages in which the omission of the particle was intentional, 
but also (in parentheses) those in which it is due to textual cor- 
ruption; and justly, because the statement under consideration, 
as has been shown, was based on both classes. From this stand- 
point it appears that the particle is omitted not quite as many 
times before gutturals as before other letters. From a more 
critical standpoint the showing is better, the figures being 17 
to 10 in favor of the gutturals, instead of 19 to 20. This, how- 
ever, is not a complete test. In order to determine whether the 
statement quoted is warranted or not, it is necessary, further, to 


124 OMISSION OF THE INTERROGATIVE PARTICLE 


know the ratio of the number of cases in which the interrogative 
particle has been intentionally omitted before the gutturals, not 
only to that of the cases in which it is wanting before other 
sounds, but also to that of the cases in which it is wsed before 
the gutturals. The following table, though probably not com- 
plete, is sufficiently accurate to answer the present purpose, viz.: 
to show whether the Hebrews really omitted “ very frequently 
before a guttural, and, when they omitted it, did so “for the 
sake of euphony.” That their practice may be more fully illus- 
trated, the examples noted are distributed among the several 
gutturals according to their vocalization. 


- ἀπ Num. 11:12; Deut. 20:19 (); IT Sam. 19: 43/42; Ezek. 28:9; 

"* Mic. 2:7; Ps. 77:9/8; Job 21:4; 84:31... .. 8 
NK Gen. 18:13, 23, 24; 27:21; Num. 32:6; Judg. 6:31; 13: uu, 
II Sam. 2:20; 7:5; 9:2; 20:17; I Kings 13:14; 18:7, 17; 


Am, 2:11; Job 34:11; 40:8 . . .. ae 

— Nil II Sam. 13:20; II Kings 6:22; Isa. 66: 9; Mic. 6: 6, rn (MT, 
Se ace oe eae 
NT Num. 16:22 (Sam. ) 1τ: 28/13; Evek. 14: 3; “Neh. 6: ἦι ἀπ Ve 


-Ν Ἐκ. 2:7; Judg. 14:3; I Sam. 14:37; 23:2; II Sam. 19:86,85; 

I Kings 22:6; II Kings 3:11; Jer. 7:17; 49:7; Job 8:3; 
T)-Chron-1836" τ τ - ὙΠ1 

--Ν Judg. 12:5; 11 Sam. 2:1; δ: 19; 9: 8; ΤΙ Kings 8: 8, 9; 18: 27 

" (MT, 3); Isa. 36:12; Mic. 6:7, 10 (MT, —Nyq); Zech. 7:3; 
PChronst4100 oss) x ΤΟΝ ΛΠ pelle 


--Ν Π Gen. 42:16; ΠῚ Kings 5:7; Tee 23: 28; Job ᾿ 1 4 
ΝΠ II Sam. 12:23 . 1 
—sy_ “Num. 22:37; I Kings 8: 27; Ps. 58: 2; δοῖ; 6: 18 4 
—ixn (NF) Judg. 20:23, 28; Jer. 5:22; 7:19; Ps. 50:13; Job 

2. 15. 6 
--Π Gen. 24:5; Jer. 26: 19; Teal L: 2 ae ὁ 8 
=55 Num. 22:30; II Kings 18:33; 19:12; Isa. 36: 18; Sta". 5 
—ri Gen. 24:21 . 1 
ea ΠῚ Jer, 2510: 1 
I Num. 23:19. , 1 


—m Num. 18:18; Judg. 9:9, uu, 13; Exek. 18: 98; ΓΙ 18:2, 
ΕΟ ΕΣ; ΤΟΥ ΠΥ ΡΠ co ae ac Bi A wed ace ge Π 


Η. G. MircHetyi 125 


on Num. 31:15; Job 1:9 2 
--ΠΡ I Sam. 15:22; Job 11:7; 22: on. 3 
—y7 Job 13:25 if 
- ὉΠ Isa. 57:6; 64:11/12; Te 5:9, 29, 9:89; 12:9,9; nee 8 
“Δ Num. 16:14; II Kings 5:36; Hag. 1:4; Job 10:4 . 4 
“ΓΙ Jer. 2:14; 22:98 2 

— pn (—¥) Gen. 31:14; 43:7, 27; 45: 8, τι 4. 18; Tes 20: 32: 

πος δ τ tit τ MN wine aah hig 14 
118 

The table, which, for obvious reasons, includes all sorts of 
questions, needs no further explanation. It makes it so plain 
that the Hebrews actually used the interrogative particle before 
all the gutturals, in almost all the possible combinations, with 
the several vowels, that it is impossible, in the light of the above 
figures (17 to 118) to suppose that they ever omitted it before 
any of them solely ‘‘for the sake of euphony.” 

A second explanation suggested by Kautzsch is that “the 
natural emphasis upon the words (especially when the most em- 
phatic word is placed at the beginning of the sentence) is of itself 
sufficient to indicate an interrogative sentence” (Gesen. § 150, 
1; cf. Davidson, §121). It is evident that this explanation does 
not go to the root of the matter, but, for the sake of complete- 
ness, its correctness should be tested. To this end it will be 
necessary, first, to examine the structure of the passages, 39 in 
number, in which, before independent questions, the particle is 
wanting in the massoretic text. The facts are exhibited in the 
following table:? 


1. Subject first: 
a) In a verbal sentence; the same being — 
a) Anoun: Lam. 3:36; || (II Kings 5:26) .. . 2 
8) A pronoun: I Kings 1:24; 21:7; Hab. 2:19; || leak 14: 10. 4 
b) In ἃ nominal sentence; the same Eee 


a) Anoun: || (II Sam. 18:29); (II Kings 9:19) .. . 2 
8) A pronoun: ee 21: fe heey 11:9; Job 2:9; | IT Sam. 
Lo) by ea “i ous, of 


2The references to cases due to textual corruption, in this as in the preceding table, 
are inclosed in parentheses. The upright parallels separate those in which the first letter 
is a guttural from the others. 


126 OMISSION OF THE INTERROGATIVE PARTICLE 


2. Predicate first: 
a) In a verbal tat Gen. 3:1; (I Sam. 30:8); Prov. 22:29; 


29:20; Job 38:18; || (Ezek. 17: 9); Hos. 10:9; (Prov. 5:16); 
Prov. 26:12; i 81: 18; (40:25/41:1); 40:80,Λ41:6. . . . 12 
b) Ina nominal sentence: I Sam. 21:16/15; || (I Sam. 16:4) 2 
8. Object first - 


a) Direct object: Job 2:10; Cant. 3:3; || Sacral 11: he pe ey 
Ὁ) Indirect object: || I Sam, 22:7 . Us, aches 


4, Adverbial clause first: 
a) In a verbal sentence: I Sam. 22:15; II Sam. 19; 23/22; Job 


14:3; || Zech. 8:6; Job 11:3; (30:24); Lam.3:38 . . . .. 7 
b) Ina nominal sentence: Gen. 18:12; || (Ezek. 11:3) . .. . 2 
39 


The table is instructive. In the first place, if one apply the rule 
that, in verbal sentences the predicate (Gesen., 8.142, 2), and in 
nominal sentences the subject, should precede (Gesen., § 141, 4), 
it will appear that of the 39 examples cited, 18, or nearly one-half, 
are perfectly normal in arrangement, and that, of these 18, 11 are 
genuine cases, of which only 6 have a guttural at the beginning. 
If the corrupt passages be neglected, the result will be somewhat 
more favorable for the statement under examination, the ratio of 
normal to irregular passages being only 11 to 16; but this is large 
enough to warrant one in questioning whether the arrangement 
of an interrogative sentence can be said to explain the omission of 
the particle. Moreover, these figures must be viewed in the light 
of the number of cases in which 7 is actually used before irregu- 
lar sentences. Perhaps, however, it will be sufficient to show how 
many of the first 89 cases in which it occurs in Genesis are of this 
description. The following table will answer this purpose: 

1. Subject first: 
a) In a verbal sentence; the same being — 


a) A non: || Genstes2ii 16%, UE Estee ere ee 2 ee Nee toe - Ἢ 

A) Ἃ pronomn 20 "5. τ ΡΥ τ οὐ in ee 
b) In ἃ nominal sentence; the subject being — 

a) A nouns 43:7; "|| 13:9; 34:23;°3701s 29 5) NS, nl 


2. Predicate first: 
a) Ina verbal sentence: 18:13, 23, 24; 24:5; || 18:14, 28; 24:58; 
27:36, 86; 29:5; 37:8, 10; 41:38; 42:22 . . 14 
Ὁ) Ina nominal sentence: ||4:9; 18:17; 19:20; 27: 38; 29; τς, 80: 15 6 


H. G. MitcHELL 127 


3. Object first: 


a) Direct object: || 20:4; 31:15 ee of viata BA nha λθοι ς "ἢ 
b) Indirect object: ||17:17 . . . ΠΥ Ned a es re 
4, Adverbial clause first: 
a) In a verbal sentence: || 3:11; 16:18; 29:25 . . . 3 
b) In a nominal sentence: “BL: 14; s 4:7; 24:23; 30:2; 34: 31, “40: 8; 
Gg aah : : weet 
39 


The device of comparing the passages in which the particle is 
omitted with the same number, the first in the Old Testament in 
which it is employed, was suggested without premeditation. The 
result is, therefore, surprising, for it appears that the number of 
the latter in which the arrangement is irregular and emphatic 
is exactly the same as among the former. This fact makes it 
pretty evident that the order of the words in a question had little, 
if anything, to do with the use or omission of the interrogative 
particle.° 


It remains to examine certain representations respecting the 
relation of the content of the questions without ™ to the omission 
of the particle. Nordheimer says that the “particles are omitted 
when the question arises from emotion or anxiety in the speaker”’ 
(8 1099, 4,a); Davidson, that “omission of the particle is most 
common in animated speech, as when any idea is repudiated”’ 
(8 121). Let us see if, or how far, these statements are correct. 
It is hardly possible to tabulate the passages in which the particle 
is omitted in such a way that scholars generally will be satisfied, 
for there are some of them about which there always has been, 
and doubtless always will be, difference of opinion; about which, 
in fact, the same person may be of two minds on different occa- 
sions. The following table, therefore, must be regarded as but a 
tentative comparison of these questions with one another in respect 
to the state of mind by which they were severally prompted. The 
various states represented are: 


3 Note, also, as a further coincidence, that 6 of these questions, as in the case of the 
genuine ones without a particle, begin with a guttural. 


4This explanation is entirely ignored by Kautzsch. 


128 OMISSION OF THE INTERROGATIVE PARTICLE 


1. Incredulity, real or feigned: Gen. 3:1; 18:12; ei: ΠῚ ΘΗ ἘΠῚ 
1:24: 700 11: "7 eke : : 5 


2. Irony: I Sam. 21:16/15; Hab. 2:19; Job 2:10; 38:18; Lam. 3:36; Ι 
I Sam. 22:7; Zech. 8:6; Job 11:3; 37:18; ὭΣ 25/41: i 40:30/ 
VG τορι - ὶ : ὙΠ 


3. Sarcasm: I Kings 21:7; Job 2:9; My II Sam. 16:17; Isa. 14:10 . 
4, Repugnance: II Sam. 19:23/22; || (Eze. 11:13); (17:9); (Prov.5:16) 4 


5. Confidence: expressed — 
@) Positively; Ps: 22:29; 29:20; 2602). he) ee a ee es 
b) Negatively: with reference to— 


a) Past facts: || (II Kings 5:26); (Hzek. 11:3) . . 2 

8) Present facts or truths: |) Lam. 3:38; ee 30: se 2 

y) Future events: || Hos. 10:9 : Ὁ ΗΝ 1 

6. Denial: I Sam. 22:15 || . : sree ΤᾺΝ 
7. Uncertainty: (Gen. 27:24); (I Sam. 80: 8); Cant. 3:3; il c Sam. 

16:4); (Sam, 18:29)--(r Kings’ 19:19), a. ; 6 

39 


In this case the table is decidedly favorable to the suggestion 
of the grammarians; for, be it noted, of the 27 genuine cases of 
the omission of the particle, no fewer than 20 fall under the first 
four heads. Indeed, if one takes into account the peculiarities 
of some of the other cases, the showing can be made even better. 
For example, while it is true that the Hebrews do not seem to 
have hesitated to prefix to any of the gutturals, whatever the 
vocalization, actually using it before 7 in at least 5 cases, it does 
not occur before the article. It is probable, therefore, that such 
a use was avoided, not on account of the guttural, but because it 
would bring together two so similar particles. If this conjecture 
be adopted, it will explain I Sam. 22:15(6), and furnish an 
alternative reason for the omission of the particle in IJ Sam. 
19:23/22(3). There is another group consisting of three pas- 
sages (5, α) which should perhaps be eliminated. They are all 
alike, and all virtually conditional clauses; so that the first, e. g., 
might be rendered, “If thou seest a man diligent in business, he,” 
etc. See the similar passages with W" or- TY: Ex. 9:17; Eccles. 
1:10; ete. The elimination of these five passages leaves 22 
genuine cases of the omission of the particle, of which all but 2 


H. G. MitcHELL 129 


may be classified under the first three heads as so many varieties 
of what might be called exclamatory questions, and appropriately 
marked by a double punctuation (!?). The conclusion is inev- 
itable that here, at least, the nature of the thought is the prin- 
cipal reason for the omission of the interrogative particle. As 
for the 2 examples not thus explained, both of them may well 
be accidental.’ 

The investigation, so far as it has proceeded, then, warrants 
one in claiming that in most, if not all, the genuine cases, except 
the two that begin with the article, the omission of the interrog- 
ative particle is explained by the peculiar feelings by which the 
questions were prompted. It has not, however, shown that the 
presence of such feelings always has this effect. As a matter of 
fact, there are many cases in which questions implying incredulity, 
irony, or sarcasm are introduced by 4. They occur in various 
parts of the Old Testament, but especially in the Book of Job, 
where there are long series of such questions. For examples see 
Lev. 10:19; 1 Sam. 10:11; I Kings 8:27; Ex. 14:11; Judg. 11:25; 
14:3; IT Kings 1:3; Job 10:7, 8; 18:4; ete. If, therefore, one 
were required to make a statement on the subject, one would have 
to say that in direct single or initial questions 1 is omitted before 
the article, and sometimes in exclamatory questions for the pur- 
pose of indicating more clearly the incredulity, irony, or sarcasm 
which prompted them, but which can be adequately expressed 
only by the human voice. 


It was my intention to include in this discussion dependent 
questions, but lack of time and space makes it necessary to post- 
pone the treatment of this phase of the subject until a future 
occasion. 


5 This is the more probable in the case of Lam. 3:38, as the word in vs. 37 immediately 
preceding the one to which * would have been prefixed endsin *. As for Hos. 10:9 the 
text and the interpretation are in dispute; cf. Wellhausen, Marti. 


CHARACTER OF THE ANONYMOUS GREEK 
VERSION OF HABAKKUK, CHAPTER 3 


MAX L. MARGOLIS 


THE CHARACTER OF THE ANONYMOUS GREEK 
VERSION OF HABAKKUK, CHAPTER 3 


Max L. MarcGotis 


1. As is well known, the Codex Barberinus (= 86 Holmes- 
Parsons) presents the third chapter of Habakkuk in a double 
translation; that is, in addition to the Septuagintal version (= 
860), in another which is anonymous (=86a). The latter is 
found also in V (= 23), 62, 147. A colophon in the Barberinus 
reads as follows: Τὴν δὴν τοῦ ἀμβακοὺμ οὐχ εὗρον συμφωνοῦσαν 
οὔτε τοῖς ὃ οὔτε ἀκόλᾳ οὔτε συμμάχῳ οὔτε θεοδοτίωνι" ξητήσεις οὖν, 
εἰ τῆς € ἢ τῆς ς ἐκδοσεώς ἐστιν. 

See Field, Hexapla, ad Hab. 3:2, and especially E. Klostermann, 


Analecta zur Septuaginta (1895), 50-60, where a fresh collation of the 
four manuscripts (and of the Complutensian text) is given. 


2. From the extant fragments of E’ and δ΄ it became evident 
to Montfaucon (quoted by Field) that our anonymous version 
cannot be identical with either. 


Compare the following examples: Verse 1, E’=’AX ἐπὶ ἀγνοημάτων, 
Anon. per’ (var. pera) ὠδῆς; vs. 8, E’="ASGB ἐκ θαιμάν, Anon. ἀπὸ λιβός 
(graphic var. λοιβος; but θεμαν V!); ibid., ἘΠ Sela, Anon. μεταβολὴ δια- 
ψάλματος (var. διάψαλμα); vs. 5, E’ mors=X θάνατος, Anon. πτῶσις; tbid., 
E’= ΣΘ ὄρνεον, Anon. τὰ μέγιστα τῶν πετηνῶν (var. πετεινων); vs. 10, E’= 
"ASO ἐντινάγματα ὑδάτων παρῆλθεν, Anon. ἐν τῷ τὸν ἐξαίσιόν σου ὄμβρον 
διελθεῖν δι᾽ αὐτῆς; vs. 13, E’="AGr ἐξῆλθες εἰς σωτηρίαν, Anon. ἀνεφάνης ἐπὶ 
σωτηρίᾳ; ibid., E’="A εἰς σωτηρίαν σὺν χριστῷ σου, S’ διὰ Ἰησοῦν τὸν Χριστόν 
cov, Anon. ρύσασθαι τοὺς ἐκλεκτούς σου; ibid., E’ denudasti, sive evacuastt, 
fundamentum usque ad collum, Anon. ἕως ἀβύσσου τῆς θαλάσσης κατα- 
δύσονται. 


Montfaucon was certain that it must then be the Septima (Z’). 
Now Field (Prolegomena, p. xlvi) has cast doubt upon the very 
existence of a seventh version. The few instances from the 
Psalter may indeed be dismissed with Field as dubious; but 
there remain the two passages, Hab. 1:5 and 2:11, according to 
the testimony of Jerome, whose language is quite explicit (‘reperi, 

133 


134 THe ANoNyMouS GREEK VERSION OF HABAKKUK 8 


exceptis quinque editionibus, id est, Aquilae, Symmachi, LXX, 
Theodotionis, et Quinta, in duodecim prophetis et duas alias edi- 
tiones”). It is nevertheless strange that in the third chapter 
his Greek apparatus does not appear to have gone beyond the 
Sexta; had he known our translation, he certainly would have 
quoted it for verse 13. 

3. Although three of the manuscripts containing our anony- 
mous version, V, 62, 147, are Lucianic in character, it will not 
do to identify Anon. with Lucian. The Complutensian, which is 
strongly Lucianic, shows, it is true, remarkable agreements with 
Anon.; but its readings are apparently mixed. The readings 
from 22, 36, 48, 51, and Theodoret (all Lucianic) agree with 
Anon. in so few cases that it is impossible to class them and 
Anon. together. It is true, we find doublets which are charac- 
teristic of Lucian (vs. 2); but they are common to all texts. 


On V, 22, 36, 48, 51, Theodoret, as Lucianie see Cornill, Hzechiel, 
p- 65; on the Complutensian, ibid., p. 66; on 62, 147, Klostermann, loc. 
cit., p. 51. Cod. 42, which according to Field is equally Lucianic, agrees 
with Anon. in the trifling omission of καί, vs. 7; more important is the 
agreement between Anon. and 239 (a manuscript whose affiliations are 
unknown) in vs. 4, ἐκεῖ ἐπεστήρικται (ἀπεστ. V, ἐστηρ. 239) ἡ δύναμις τῆς 
δόξης αὐτοῦ against καὶ ἔθετο (ἔθηκεν Compl.) ἀγάπησιν κραταιὰν (ἀγάπην 
ἰσχυρὰν Compl.) ἰσχύος (τῆς δυνάμεως Compl.) αὐτοῦ &. 

V quite frequently abandons Anon. in favor οὗ G&. Thus, vs. 8, ἐξ 
ὄρους φαράν 62, 86a, 147: ἐξ ὄρους κατασκίου dacéws V = Ne-2¢-b αἱ, , ibid., 
ὁ οὐρανός 62, 86a, 147: οὐρανούς V=G; vs. 6, ai ὁδοὶ αἱ ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἀλλοιωθή- 
σονται" αὐτοῦ ἕνεκα σεισθήσεται ἡ οἰκουμένη 62, 86a, 147: αἱ ὁδοὶ αἱ ἐξ ἀρχῆς 
ἀντὶ κόπων V, cf. πορίας (var. πορειας) αἰωνίους (-ἰας) αὐτοῦ (var. αὐτῶν; δ 40, 
al.) ἀντὶ (+ δὲ) κόπων &; vs. 8, ἡ ὀργή 62, 86a, 147: τὸ ὅρμημα V = (τ; vs. 18, 
ἐκλεκτούς 62, 86a, 147: χριστούς γ᾽ ΞΞ Nee (vid) AQ, al. On the other hand, 
in two cases V stands alone against (ἃ: vs. 6, διεθρύβη 62, 86a, 147, cf. 
G:>V; vs. 8, ἀνέβης 62, 86a, 147, cf. &: praem. κύριε. 

A conclusive proof of the un-Lucianic character of our version is 
furnished by the rendering ἀσφαλεῖς for MDNR, vs. 19, & presenting 
the literal translation ὡσεὶ ἐλάφου (var. ὡς ἐλάφων), exactly as the same 
word is rendered by Lucian, II Kings 22:34 (στηρίζων rods πόδας μου ὡς 
ἐλάφου). 


4. It is worthy of note that in three instances Anon. appears 
to have influenced 8. 


Max L. ΜΑΒΘΟΙΙΒ 135 


Vs. 9, sami cf. ἐχόρτασας ; vs. 14, ,on2elemas os22| cf. τοὺς 
πεποιθότας ἐπὶ τῇ αὐθαδείᾳ αὐτῶν; ibid., ἼΞΞ > Anon. 

A similar influence might be found in vs. 6, if we were certain about 
the meaning of oe (on the reading “yo see Payne Smith s. v.). 
According to Néldeke (ZDMG, XL, p. 729, footnote), the verb is taken 
by some of the native lexicographers to mean ‘tremble,’ while others 
assign to it the meaning ‘conjecture.’ The latter recalls the rendering 
of Anon., ἐξείκασεν. 


5. The author of our version was certainly a Jew. 


Whereas all the other versions render Ww wa, vs. 13, by χριστούς, 


χριστόν, χριστῷ, Our version alone is careful to avoid the term because of 
its Christian associations, putting in its place the safer ἐκλεκτούς (so 62, 
86a, 147). How far a christianizing exegesis could go is shown by the 
rendering of S’, διὰ Ἰησοῦν τὸν Χριστόν cov. Aquila, who elsewhere re- 
places the Septuagintal χριστός by ἠλειμμένος (Ps. 2:2; Dan. 9:26), seems 
to have foregone caution in the present passage, to the delectation of 
Jerome (“Tudaeus Aquila interpretatus est ut Christianus”). 


6. Our version shows two doublets which it shares, however, 
with the majority of 6 manuscripts. 


Vs. 2, atin Dw =7p3 39, ev τῷ ἐγγίζειν τὰ ἔτη (ἐπι- γνωσθήσῃ (>68, 
180,3511): ἐν τῷ παρεῖναι τὸν καιρὸν ἀναδειχθήσῃ () 239) = 7M Ὁ ΞΡΞ; ; 
abid., “itm on T3712 ®, ἐν τῷ ταραχθῆναι (var. sorbent τὴν ψυχήν 
μου ἐν ὀργῇ (ἐ. ὁ. > Compl. ) ἐλέους μνησθήσῃ = ὙΠ mm 772 and 7372 
“iam ont. Le οἷν 


Especially characteristic of our version is the introduction 
from a parallel clause of a verb wanting in 49; a Greek synonym 
is naturally chosen. 


Thus in vs. 2 (also in G), καὶ ἐξέστην is resumptive of καὶ εὐλαβήθην, 
while γνωσθήσῃ is supplied from the του ἐπιγνωσθήσῃ or ἀναδειχθήσῃ. 
Similarly in vs. 4, ἐπεστήρικται resumes ὑπάρχει αὐτῷ; ν5. θ, ἀλλοιωθήσονται 
corresponds to ταπεινωθήσονται; vs. 9, σείσεις, to ee ΞΟ vs. ll, ἐπ- 
écxev, perhaps to ἐστάθη. 


7. Our version indulges in free renderings or paraphrase of 
an interpretative character, often suggesting religious scruples in 
the manner of the Targums. 


Vs. 7, οἱ κατοικοῦντες Tas δέρρεις Μαδιάμ over against & πτοηθήσονται καὶ 
(x. > 42) (at) σκηναὶ γῆς Μαδιάμ. The purpose is apparently to avoid the 


136 THE ANONYMoUS GREEK VERSION OF HABAKKUK 8 


personification of inanimate objects. For Targumic examples see Cor- 
nill, loc. cit., p. 123. 

Vs. 8, ἅρματα for & ἵππους covers up a mythological element. 

Vs. 10, ἐν τῷ ἀντοφθαλμεῖν σε, & ὄψονταί σε. The mountains, as inani- 
mate, are not to be endowed with sight. : 

Vs. 18, ἀνεφάνης, &’AEH’S’ ἐξῆλθες, SO egressus es. A well-known Tar- 
gumic device; cf. here ΝΟΣ. 

Ibid., καταδύσονται, free for INAS TY é 

Vs. 14, μετὰ δυνάμεώς cov = 223} oye! , paraphrastic. 

Vs. 16, τὰ σπλάγχνα μου, More decorous than (Κα ἡ κοιλία pou = "Joa (the 
same purpose is subserved by καρδία Ne-4¢-> al.), Similarly, ibid., κατ’ 
ἐμαυτὸν ἐταράχθη for & καὶ ὑποκάτωθέν μου ἐταράχθη ἡ ἕξις (Var. ἰσχύς) μου = 
TAIN ΠΩ. On aesthetic euphemism in the ancient versions see 
Frankel, Vorstudien, § 31; Geiger, Urschrift, pp. 385 ff. 

Free is the rendering in vs. 17, ἡ ἐλαία ἐξίτηλος (‘evanescent, extinct,’ 
a hapax legomenon in OT Greek) ἔσται, (ἃ ψεύσεται ἔργον ehaias = WMD 
ΩΓ ΙΣΡΩ; and vs. 19, ἀσφαλεῖς, an interpretative paraphrase for & 
ὡσεὶ ἐλάφου (var. ὡς ἐλάφων) = NDAD - 

Vs. 19, ἔδωκέ μοι ἰσχύν is less “anthropomorphic than (ἃ δύναμίς (var. 
ἰσχύς) μου -- "5 ΤΊ. 

An interpretative addition seems to be also τῶν ἐχθρῶν μου vs. 19 (ef. 
τοὺς ἐχθρούς Procop.), just as τοὺς τραχήλους paraphrases G& τὰ ὑψηλά Ξε 
aS - 


8. Our version also strives after idiomatic Greek constructions, 
while © affects a hebraizing literalness. 


Thus we find subordination (participial or infinitive construction) in 
the place of Hebrew co-ordination: vs. 6, στὰς διεμέτρησεν, κατανοήσας 
ἐξείκασεν for ἔστη καὶ ἐσαλεύθη, ἐπέβλεψεν (var. κατενόησεν) καὶ (δι)ετάκη ; VS. 
10, ἐν τῷ ἀντοφθαλμεῖν σε ταραχθήσονται, & ὄψονταί σε καὶ ὠδινήσουσιν (var. 
εἶδόν σε καὶ συναλγοῦσιν). 


9. The exegetical position of our version, whether in matters 
of punctuation, accentuation, rendering of words, or interpreta- 
tion in general, is on the whole modern, if we may take the 
exegesis of the Vulgate as a standard of modernity. But, as a 
matter of fact, it becomes evident upon examination that in the 
development of scriptural exegesis a fixed chronology is impos- 
sible. Sometimes we find a rendering which is by no means 
obvious, running counter to what we are wont to designate as the 


Max L. ΜΑΒΟΟΙΙΞ 137 


traditional interpretation, in supposedly late versions, the Targum 
for instance; and vice versa. Apparently there must have existed 
for a long period marked fluctuation in the conception of scrip- 
tural words or contexts, corresponding to the unsettled state of 
the consonantal text itself. Deviations from the received punc- 
tuation and accentuation may be met with even in Aquila. 


Examples: (a) Punctuation. yw and yw; vs. 4, pw" # = Anon. 


(ἐκεῖ ἐπεστήρικται; I take the verb as an amplification by the translator, 
see τς 8. 6; it is possible, however, that we have here a doublet, that 
is, ἐπεστήρικται = Dwi, passivum pro activo) © (et ibi): DD (ἃ (καὶ ἔθετο) 
"AS (et posuit), *° 

Vocalization. Vs. 2, =7P2 primo #= Anon. G@ (ἐν μέσῳ) Σὲ (ἐντός): 
a7p2 ᾽Α (ἐν τῷ ἐγγίζειν); a7p2 secundo: ΞΊΡΞ Anon. & (ἐν τῷ ἐγγίζειν, 
ἐν τῷ παρεῖναι). 


Ibid., Dw =A (τὰ ἔτη) & (τῶν ἐνιαυτῶν) © (ἐτῶν): py Anon. & 
(δύο). 

Vs. 5, 72) =A (λοιμός) & (θάνατος) ἘΠ (mors) Anon. (πτῶσις, else- 
where =}33, mpg 4; cf. also pnn Sir. 50:4): 72) (ἃ (λόγος) Θ᾽ (sermo). 

Vs. 6, om" Ἧ -- (ἃ (καὶ (Sjierdicy passivum pro activo, cf. D et dis- 
solvit'): sn" Anon. (καὶ ἐξείκασεν ). 

ol toe 

1The meaning was derived from “{f\7j ‘unfasten, loosen,’ λύειν (Ps. 104 (105) :20; 145 
(146) :7), διαλύειν (Isa. 58:6), solvere (ibid.). Διαλύειν is used to render ΟἿ (Judg. 15:14), 
which in a number of instances is rendered by τήκεσθαι and its compounds; in other words, 
(δια)λύεσθαι and τήκεσθαι are synonyms. “fF, in the mind of the translator, could be 
used in the sense of ‘breaking up, liquefying,’ quite as well as its Aramaic equivalent 
Now, which means ‘loosen’ (Dan. 3:25; in a figurative sense, ibid., 5:6), but also ‘dissolve’ 
(cf. wide] liquefactus est in a quotation from Ephrem Syrus, Brockelmann, p. 387b). 
Ἢ mw ‘soften, dissolve,’ e. g., Pesahim 44b, whence the biblical τ Num. 6:3 is, of 
course, a different root; see Brown-Driver-Briggs, Lexicon, p. 1056a, and references. Ac- 
cording to Ibn Ganah (s. v. ἌΖΩ2), it is quite possible that "fA derives its meaning of 
‘unfastening’ from an? ‘spring up;’ but see Brown-Driver-Briggs, p. 684a. With GP 


goes Ibn Ezra who paraphrases ΟἿΣ. It is probable that T sna ‘he confounded 
them’ presupposes the same etymology. It is also to be noted that AM Job 37:1 is 
rendered καὶ ἐλύθη A. 


2Eixagew ‘liken, compare, infer from comparison, conjecture, guess,’ is found for 
mat ‘think of’ Ps. 47 (48):10 Σ, Ww ‘calculate, reckon’ Proy. 23:7 Σ (εἰκάζων = 
w/w), cf. Mishnic “YY ‘estimate,’ Hullin 7:4, hence εἰκασμοί for Dayo Gen. 
26:12 “A: Wisd. 8:8 εἰκάζει AN'=[o,5 & aestimat VY, 9:16 εἰκάφομεν = Lando Ε aesti- 
mamus PY, 19:18 εἰκάσαι = |Zaso9 % aestimari YW. The passive εἰκάζεσθαι corresponds to 
“pm Jer. 26 (46):23. ΔΩ ‘spy out, explore’ Num. 13:2 is a synonym of ESE ibid., 21:32, 
and therefore of ΡΠ: ; ef. Judg. 18:2. Our translator found in i Bel the exact counter- 
part to ἜΤ. διεμέτρησεν : ‘“* He stood, and measured the earth; he beheld, and explored 
the nations.’ See below. Of course, the form "\f\>] may have been taken as an equivalent 
of "\F\"], that is, in the language of our grammars, as a form after Y”Y analogy (see 
Konig, Lehrgebdude, 163 Way 


138 THe ANONYMOUS GREEK VERSION OF HABAKKUK 8 


Vs. 7, AMM ΊΗ = G’A® (ἀντι) Σὲ (διά): non Anon. (σεισθήσεται; cf. Job 
4:14 διασείειν (var. συσ-) = MET nm, a7 and ITB are synonyms; 
ef, Deut. 1:21; Ps. 27:1. 3 αὐτοῦ ἕνεκα -- Ἴ5, cf. Isa. 59:20 ἕνεκεν Sadv= 
TPE>). 

(b) Accentuation. Vs. 4, 4D ar ΠΣ ® = Anon. (κέρατα ἐκ χειρὸς 
αὐτοῦ ὑπάρχει αὐτῷ): ap fas Esp &k ae ἐν χερσὶν αὐτοῦ; that is, & 
connects 45 with ‘2 “and sees in the former an amplification of the 
pronominal suffix in the noun; ef. Fried. Delitzsch, Hiob, p. 151). 


Vail: sor? ἘΞ τ iN? # = Anon. (κατὰ τὸ φέγγος τῶν βολίδων 


σου πορεύσονται): chsh) > XT ΠΝ: (ἃ (εἰς φῶς βολίδες σου πορεύσονται). 

(c) Meaning of words. Vs. 5, τοῦ Anon, τὰ μέγιστα τῶν πετηνῶν 
(var. πετεινων) =A (πτηνῶν) SOE’ (ὄρνεον). The word is given the mean- 
ing ‘bird,’ ‘birds,’ (ὄρνεις, πτηνόν, πετεινά, οἰωνός; my, MDW, eos, |e, 
Ἰδωςθ; avis, aves), specifically a bird of prey, ‘vulture,’ ‘eagle’ (yw, 
ἀετός; iw OWN Role wy Οἱ & le} Slo pul) ἃ Deut. 
32:24; Job 5:7; "A Deut., Job, Ps. 77 (78):48; 3 Job, Ps. 75 (76):4; 77 
(78):48; TOI Deut.; S Deut., Job; Ἐ Deut., Job; Exod. rabba, chap. 12; 
Rashi on the two Ps. passages; Ibn Ganah. See Gesen. Thesaurus for 
an etymology based on Arabic, which, however, is rejected as uncertain. 
Perhaps the signification is a purely conjectural one derived from the 
passage in Job, GrAQ. 26. 233 ἐν πεδίλοις (πεδειλοις), seems to have taken 


ge in the sense of ‘shackles,’ cf. iy ‘walk like a shackled man,’ 


iw Ἴ ‘drive (a beast) in hobbles’ (Hava). The variants (εἰς πεδία, εἰς 
πεδιαν; εἰς παιδειαν) are apparently corruptions in Greek. 
Vs. 6, ΤΩ Anon. διεμέτρησεν = crmasco % et mensus est B, which is 


the obvious sense. @& καὶ ἐσαλεύθη, passivum pro activo,=€ yy, 
assumes, perhaps correctly, a root 7573 ἢ “722. just as {979 corresponds 
to 125) (Ps. 99:1; also 72 (73):2, where & ἐσαλεύθησαν = "122. 22). It is 


unnecessary to read non" (Guthe) or Ἢ 33707) (Wellhausen). 

Ibid., 37H Anon. τορεινώθος οὐαί) ΞΞι ole S incurvati sunt ἘΠ, again 
the obvious meaning. (ἃ ἐτάκησαν from MD (or Mw, Mw) ‘melt 
away, Arab. Lu, Ethiop. (ha:, Syriac Lue and ws (Noldeke, 
ZDMG, XXX, p. 186, footnote); cf. Ps. 41 (42):7 mm" ION κατατήκεται 
3. 12, “aime om κατατήκῃ Δ; Sir. 43:10 ἐκλυθῶσιν = TM (so cor- 
rectly ese 

Vs. 6, 21 Pi Anon. πολεμοῦν takes the verb as denominative from 

175 τι Brown-Driver- -Briggs, 8. Ὁ. “2). Perhaps we should point 


Max L. Marco.uis 139 


1377 in order to explain Anon. (but see Kimhi); DB accinctwm, of 
course, presupposes the same etymology. 

(ad) Interpretation in general. The Hebrew tenses being ambiguous 
(the imperfects may be taken aoristically, and the perfects prophetically; 
see Nowack’s commentary), it would be of interest to know how they 
were understood by the ancient versions. From the paraphrastic ex- 
plicitness of © it is clear that it interprets vss. 3-15 as a historical retro- 
spect, while the framework is taken in an eschatological sense, exactly 
in the manner of our own Authorized Version. With the exception of 
om, vs. 10, the imperfects are taken in a future sense by BV. The 
rendering in $ fluctuates between future, past, and present. Anon. has 
the future, except for 257M vs. Sra wr vs. 9, ypan (aorist and future) 
ibid., xia and TAIN vs. 16, which are rendered aoristically, and vege 
vs. 18, for “which the present (var. the perfect) is used. G in the main 
agrees with Anon.; but note the future for ΞΘ» ypan ; future with 
aoristic variant ae “"9T); present with future variant for Se ag 
Marti’s interpretation of our psalm as a description of the coming 
manifestation of the Lord in language reminiscent in part of the tra- 
ditional theophanies is borne out by the majority of the ancient ver- 
sions; in vs. 3 the future is attested by “A S@E’, in addition to the versions 
mentioned. 

Vs. 9, ΤΣ ΣΕΞΕ mina Compl. ὁ ποταμὸς σχίζεται τῇ yy, passivum 
pro activo, taking yu as subject, ΤΡ ΓΠΣ as object, and pan as 3 pers. 
fem.; D fluvios scindes terrae="A ποταμοὺς σχίσεις γῆς takes ypan as 
2 pers. masc. and connects AIT and ys in a status constructus 
relation; & ποταμῶν (var. ποταμῷ, ποταμοῖς) ῥαγήσεται (ἡ) γῆ, passivum pro 
activo, similarly takes Span as 2 pers. masc. and connects the two 
nouns in a status constructus relation of an inverse order; the same 
interpretation seems to underlie $ (ωζρω ͵.2οὐ σι}. {S3fo). Anon. πο- 
ταμοὺς διεσκέδασας καὶ γῆν σείσεις also takes ypan as 2 pers. masc. and 
the two nouns as co-ordinate objects, the verb being rendered doubly 
(see above, § 6). Ibn Ezra and Kimhi also take the verb as 2 pers. 
mase. with ΥᾺ as the first and m3 as the second (predicative) 
object. 

Vs. 10, on Anon. ὄρη adheres to the simple sense (peshat); & 
λαοί is haggadic, cf. Mic. 6:2 λαοί (βουνοί AQ*, al.: ὄρη Q™8), cf. ὦ (accord- 
ing to Kimhi) ΝΙΝ and Ros hasanah 1la= Exodus rabba, chap. 15 
and 28, MIAN NOR OMT PN. 


10. The Hebrew text underlying Anon. shares a number of 
variations with ©, but has also some of its own. 


140 THe ANonyMouS GREEK VERSION OF HABAKKUK 3 


(a) Vs. 1, NASW oy # al segionoth Jerome =’AXE’ (ἐπὶ ἀγνοημά- 
twv) © (ὑπὲρ τῶν Seoucnaray see Field) (pro ignorantiis) T (Nmbw>): 
Mies Dy? Anon. & (μετ᾽ φδῆς ). 

"ὩΣ ὮΝ WMS (Δ ὼ39) T (τ Ἐ (et timui) Anon. & (καὶ 
ie var. eboBiOnv, correction after 38 3): "nS Anon. & (κατενόησα ἢ). 

Ibid., 3"=7 HA (ζώωσον αὐτό) © (ζώωσον paca) > (ἀναζώωσον αὐτόν) 
ἘΞ (vivifica illud) ὦ (ΝΡ ΤΠ ww mas): om Anon. & (ζῴων) 5 (Len). 

Ibid., pF BE (notum facies) © (RAD Thy MN): PAM 
Anon. & (ἐπιγνωσθήσῃ, ἀναδειχθήσῃ) 3 (Spo22). Ἷ 

Ibid., BM ss Anon. (ἃ secundo (ἐλέους) 3 (pedsaus) ὦ (772772) Ἐ 
(misericordiae): "ΠῚ Anon. & primo (τὴν ψυχήν μου). 

Vs. 8, mn HS (He): mn ug Anon. (ἃ (ὀργισθῆς var. ὠργίσθης) ὦ 
(ΤΩΡ ya ΤΣ ΓΙ) B (iratus es). 

Vs. 15, mov WS (2.952): ὩΣ ΣΙ Anon. & (ἀνεβίβασας, ἐπεβίβασας: 
var. ἐπιβεβᾶς, ὃ ὑπερήγαγες eye 

Ibid., an WS (Lateo) © (M57) FB (im luto): ian Anon. & (éra- 
paxOn,° with fay as subject; (συν)ταράσσοντας, with sigys 5 as object). 

Veo: =p7 QD (putredo): 3y3? Anon. & (τρόμος) S (Ϊ2...25) ὦ 
(NYT). 

Note the following instances where Anon. goes with #, while & varies: 

Vs. 9, ἼΣΩΣ WH Anon. (ἐξεγέρθη) S (-as22) Ἐ (suscitam, activum pro 
passivo): "7M Τῷ (ἃ (évérewas, var. évrevets). 

Vs. 10, "27 mv ἘΠῚ ® Anon. (ἐν τῷ τὸν ἐξαίσιόν σου ὄμβρον διελθεῖν 


δι᾽ αὐτῆς) S ἘΞ fiso) jdas5jo) T (TY ἈΠ Woy) Ἐ (gurges aquarum 
transtit) “AZ@E’ (ἐντινάγματα ὑδάτων παρῆλθεν): WAY "72 “T (ἃ (σκορπί- 
Cwv* (var. διασπερεῖς ) ὕδατα πορείας (αὐτοῦ). as 

Vs: 12, Wn # Anon. (ἐγερθήσῃ) G8 (συμπατήσεις): ὍΣΩΙ (ἃ (ὀλι- 
γώσεις, var. ἐλαττώσεις). 

808, Ps. 9:16 73997 Hebr. ἐγγαων ΘΈΑ φδή; 91 (92):3 ἸἼΛΗΓῚ “by G& per’ φδῆς. Hence 
the retroversion [)3943 (Graetz, al.) is superficial. Possibly no variant need be assumed 
at all; cf. Ps. 7:1: sat G& ψαλμός. 

4 κατανοεῖν = os Gen. 42:9 and elsewhere. In keeping with the parallelism, we should 
probably read ΠΩΣ for ΠΣ. 

ΡΝ (Graetz) is a superficial retroversion. 

6 Of, ταράσσειν = "ATT Ps. 45 (46):3; WAM Lam. 1:20; 2:11. 

7 For my & Sronehly read ΖΦ ; so Wallhaucen: alii. 


Soxopmigew = ΓΤ Mal. 2:3; Ezek. 5:12; διασπείρειν = mat Jer.15:7, πορεύεσθαι -- \AY 
Num. 20:19 and elsewhere. Ἷ 


Max L. MarGo.tis 141 


Vs. 13, Tio" ming # Anon. (ἕως ἀβύσσου τῆς θαλάσσης; free): my 
aon! E’'D (denudasti fundamentum): Tid" my Θ (ornasti funda- 
mentum): “AON mony (ἃ (ἐξ-ήγειρας δεσμούς). 

Vs. 16, 273" Ὦ ‘Anon. (πολεμοῦν, see above, 8 9): 2 (ἃ (παροικείας 
ΠΝ τς 

Vs. 17, maa # Anon. (ἐκ μάνδρας) S (BEY <—~) B (de ovili): 
Dona G Gan βρώσεως). 

Ὁ) Vs. 4 » whan #’A (absconsionem) > (absconditam) Θ (absconsio) 
Έ ΓΕ ΩΝ ἃ est) © (ὩΣ NNT) & (ἀγάπησιν "): (ees Anon. 
(ἡ δύναμις). 

Vs. 6, 79 WS (sassasey) © (aIpI) Ῥ (sacculi): Ty? & (βίῳ), 
» Anon. 

Vs; 7, vis DG (κόπων) ᾿Α (ἀνωφελοῦς) Σὲ (ἀδικίαν) Θ (ἀδικίας) S (-9}) 
T (amid) F (iniquitate): vs Anon. (ἡ οἰκουμένη). 

Vs. 9, nivaw HV (turamenta) ὦ (ya"p d-42)>&: mya Anon. 
(€xéptacas) S (kame). 

Ibid. "AX MS (yokes) T (77272) BD (quae locutus es) & (λέγει, 
var. elev, + κύριος): ay 2? Anon. (τῆς φαρέτρας αὐτοῦ). 

Vs. 10, DST Hea (rd) (ὕψος) S (feose) T (NMI) V (altitudo): (5p) 
pi” Anon. (μεῖζον). 

Vs. 13, v7 maa 2S (Was) adus «οὖ (yeni) Ἐ (de domo 
impii): nv 707 (πὰ (ἀνόμων (var. ἀσεβῶν) ἈΠ}: »Ὡ" ΝᾺ Anon. 
(ἀνθρώπων Ἐπ τον, 

Vs. 14, Map2 WG (διέκοψας, var. διεμέρισας) “Φὦ (22.02) Φ (ΝΣ) V 
(malediwisti™): maps Anon. (ἐξεδίκησας). 

Tbid., "ID BS (uncylems) ὦ (ΠΡ 2 MDMA) Ῥ (sceptris 
eius): Twn Anon. (μετὰ δυνάμεώς σου). 

Ibid., aml) WG (δυναστῶν, var. δυνατῶν) S (snalpeso) © (779755) 
v Gideon etus):” 7B” Anon. (τῶν ἀμαρτωλῶν). 


9From FIM τα δ ΓΊ. From ΓΊΓῚ τ lan. 


1 ΟΕ, δύναμις = WAY 158. 28:1 Ales ef. Nix Num. 4:23 Al. and elsewhere. Possibly τῆς 
δόξης αὐτοῦ = jax oa is a synonym of PANS ef. Isa. 28:1: ἽΝ ΒΩ AR ; δόξα -- 
[8}81..}5}5] ibid. Al.); the inversion as Isa. 62:8 κατὰ τῆς δόξης (var. ἰσχύος) τοῦ Aprons avTov= 


ey yrs. For the interchange of ΤΊ and ¥ (Old Hebrew script) see the examples 
adduced by me in ZAW, XXV, 321. 


12 Cf, φαρέτρα = WALD Jer. 28 (51): 12. 13 Cf. Deut. 27:14. 
14 Cf. Lev. 24:16. 15 Cf, Judg. 5:7 GB. 16 Cf, Ezek. 18:10’A. 


112 Tue ANoNyMoUS GREEK VERSION OF HABAKKUK 8 


Ibid., "FO" WG (σεισθήσονται, var. σαλευθήσονται) ὦ (IED mame) 
Ἔ (venientibus ut turbo): 1795" Anon. (of πεποιθότες) 3 (5.5.2), 

Ibid., ΝΣ ΞΓῚΡ WD (ad dispergendum me): ἼΧΞ" FID & (ἐν αὐτῇ (δι)αν- 
οἰξουσι): > Anon. ΕΣ 

Ibid., 723 WE (ὡς) Σ (ὥστε) Ἐ (sicut eiws): > Anon. &. 

Vs. 16, ὭΣ HS (Dssaa) T (VOD) V (audivi): Tria ἃ 
(ἐφύλαξα Compl., “ξάμην cet): "raw Anon. (ἐταξάμην). ‘ots 

Ibid., TAIN WG (dva(var. rege ar Cente B (requiescam): 3m? 
Anon. (λέξι: 


11. Unsolved problems of identification: 

Vs. 8, 6 προέβης Ξε; vs. 11, φῶς τὸ λαμπόν ΞΞ ἢ; ibid., τὸ δὲ peyyos =?2; 
vs. 19, ταχίσας xaterovcato=?; G& vs. 18, βαλεῖς (var. ἔβαλες) =?; vs. 14, 
χαλίνους (var. ἡνίας) = ἢ. 


17 Cf, βοήθεια = MIO ΓΙ ΘΟ Isa., chaps. 30, 32, and βοηθεῖν = “ΣΌ Ps, 118 (119) :117, 
Wd II Esdr. 5:2. 905 is thus a synonym of ap Pr 209: Wwe. 


NOTES ON THE NAME 7" 


GEORGE F. MOORE 


= 5 ᾿ ‘ it. ᾿ Te 
ἢ . r oo 


Sa eae eres Sars ec 


-. . - a 
-~ 
1 
. : 7 a or ἣ ἵν γα “ 
> 7 - ᾿ ri 
i ; Par Paes 
~ : ᾿ ; 
Y i ad μὰ aT 4 
Ξ as + = ῃ r 1h ὶ ws ἐν 7 
᾿ 3 » γ᾽ i 
a! ἢ 
᾿ = ἄ ξ ‘ 
4 7 ἂν ᾿ 
2) ; Ν ; 
a el 
ι - 
" 
" ͵ 
Φ " - 
en - ͵ ri 
- ᾿ - 
᾿ 
᾿ = 
ἣν 7 * > " ᾿ i ; 
- he 
: ‘ ᾽ 
ΒΞ . 
Ὁ , 
~~; : 
᾿ ἢ i 
- ΕΙ 
: > ‘ 
᾿ 
Ἵ τ » 
᾽ ~ i 
- 
7 . 
ΝΜ ᾿ 
ἘΞ ‘ 
‘ 
ὃ 3 4 
me i ii 
- ϑ 
. 4 Me 
᾿ - - Ἂν 
Ve. * A 
> i . - 
᾿ . 
"Ὁ ΗΕ ἢ 
+ 
᾿ τ 
a " ry. ᾿ τ 
: . ᾿ ~ 
. ᾿ ᾿ 
f - a. ΄ 
} mel . Ν 
4 ᾿ - 
. -- ad " 
' a = 
‘, μα: ᾿ 
δι 1 ν 
τῷ γε = 
a 
+ ἣν "ἱ 
= a cht 3). a 
" 
> * ᾿ a Ξ 
δ ΄ . ἐν 
Ε δος - P 4 
υ , '» δέν» »- 7 
= a τ, 
- . ᾿ 
] - "ὦ 3 a ts 


NOTES ON THE NAME 717" 


GEORGE F.. Moore 


I. THE PRONUNCIATION JEHOVAH 


In modern books of reference the origin of the hybrid Jehovah 
is usually attributed to Petrus Galatinus, a Franciscan friar, con- 
fessor of Pope Leo X, in his De arcanis catholicae veritatis, pub- 
lished in 1518. Thus, in the new Hebrew and English Lexicon 
(p. 218), Professor Briggs writes: ‘‘The pronunciation Jehovah 
was unknown until 1520, when it was introduced by Galatinus.’’! 

The writers who in the seventeenth century combated the pro- 
nunciation Jehovah make similar assertions, though not all with 
equal positiveness. Drusius, in the preface of his Tetragrammaton 
(1604),’ calls Galatinus “pater vulgatae lectionis;’ and, again 
(p. 67), declares “primus in hunc errorem nos induxit Galatinus;” 
but, when he comes to discuss more particularly Galatinus’ words 
(p. 90), expresses himself more cautiously: “Fieri potest ut errem, 
tamen inclino ut credam, parentem lectionis Jehova Petrum Gala- 
tinum esse. Nam, ante qui sic legerit, neminem novi.”* Sixti- 
nus Amama (De nomine tetragrammato, 1628), a pious pupil of 
Drusius, says (Decas, p. 205): ‘“Nullus certe, vocem eam cuiquam 
ante P. Galatinum usurpatam, adhuc ostendit.” He rightly attri- 
butes the occurrence of Jehova in certain printed editions of 
Jerome,’ Paul of Burgos, and Dionysius Carthusianus, to the edi- 
tors. Cappellus (Oratio de SS. Dei nomine tetragrammato, 1624)° 


1Similarly, and with the same error in the date, A. B. Davidson, in Hastings’ Dictionary 
of the Bible, II (1899), p. 199; and E. Kautzsch, ibid., Extra Volume, p. 625 (with the correct 
date). 

2 Reprinted, with other discussions, on both sides of the question, by Reland, Decas 
exercitationum philologicarum de vera pronuntiatione nominis Jehova, 1707. For conven- 
ience of reference I cite these dissertations, some of which in their separate form are rare, 
by Reland’s pages. 

3In a note on this passage Reland pointed out that Jehova was used by Porchetus de 
Salvaticis, who wrote in 1303. See below, p. 147. 

4 Breviarium in Psalterium, on Ps, 8, Plantin edition. 

5 The Oratio was first printed at the end of Cappellus’ Arcanum punctationis (1624), pp. 
313-332; then in the revised edition of the Arcanum (1643); finally, as an appendix to his 
Critica Sacra (Paris, 1650), pp. 690-712, with a Defensio, chiefly against the reply of Gataker 
(ibid., pp. 713-739). In this ultimate form it is reprinted by Reland. 


145 


146 Notes oN THE NAME S77" 


is less guarded; he speaks of ‘“Galatinus, quem primum dicunt 
in orbem terrarum vocem istam Jehova invexisse” (Decas, p. 270); 
and roundly affirms, “Nemo ante Galatinum legit vel Jova, vel 
Jehova” (ibid. p. 291). 

The scholars who defended the pronunciation Jehovah —Fuller 
(1612), Gataker (1645), and Leusden (1657)*— were apparently 
unable to discover any instances of the earlier occurrence of Jeho- 
vah other than those cited and accounted for by Drusius and 
Amama. 

In 1651, however, Joseph Voisin, the learned editor of the 
Pugio Fidei of Raymundus Martini, produced conclusive proof 
that Jehovah had been used long before Galatinus. In the Index 
capitum libri Galatini, a catalogue of Galatinus’ plagiarisms 
appended to his edition of the Pugio, in a note on De Arcanis, 
1. ii. c. 10, Voisin showed that Jehova ( Yehova, Yohova) occurred 
in three of the four manuscripts of the Puwgio which he had col- 
lated. Thus in Part III, Dist. 2, chap. iii, 84 (fol. 448),’ in 
Raymundus’ translation of a quotation from Bereshith Rabbah on 
Gen. 2:19 f. (ef. our Bereshith Rabbah, 17, 4), where, in a tradi- 
tion of R. Aha, God asks Adam, ‘‘And what is my name?’ Adam 
answers: “ΓΙ Jehova, sive Adonay, quia Dominus es omnium.”* 
In Part III, Dist. 8, chap. ii, §11 (fol. 515). Raymundus writes: 
“Oum gloriosus nomen de cunctis Det nominibus, scilicet 17", 
quod pro sui dignitate nullus praesumat Judaeus suis quatuor 
literis nominare, sed dicunt loco ejus "J7N, ut supra dictum est: 
si istud, inquam, tam gloriosum nomen,” etc.’ Here Cod. Majori- 
canus and Cod. Barcinonensis read: “Cum gloriosus nomen de 
cunctis Dei nominibus, videlicet Yehova, vel Yod, He, Vau, He: 
vel nomen quatuor literarum.” Voisin accordingly castigates 
Cappellus for asserting that the name Jehova was unknown before 
the sixteenth century, and was introduced by Galatinus:" inas- 


6 All reprinted in Reland, Decas, etc. 
7 The pagination of Voisin’s edition is noted on the margin of J. B. Carpzov’s reprint, 
Leipzig and Frankfurt, 1687. 


8In this place only Voisin has admitted Jehova into his text, on the authority of Codex 
Fuxensis, which was the basis of his edition; Codex Majoricanus here reads, ‘‘ Yohova, id 
est Dominus.”” The Hebrew has only 555 TS πο mM. 


9So Voisin, with Cod. Fuxensis. 
10 Critica Sacra (1650), p. 691; Decas, pp. 269, 270, 291; see above, p. 145. 


GEORGE F. Moore 147 


much as Scaliger had proved” that the De Arcanis of Gala- 
tinus was taken bodily from the Pugio, Capellus ought to have 
examined the latter, one manuscript of which was readily acces- 
sible to him in the Plessy-Mornay library in Saumur; he would 
have learned that Jehova is found in a work written about 
1278. 

A cooler scrutiny of the testimony adduced by Voisin will 
doubtless convince the modern critic that the occurrence of the 
name Jehova in manuscripts of the Pugio is not to be attributed 
to the author himself, but to subsequent copyists. The purely 
casual appearance of the name in the two passages cited, and the 
variations of the codices, are conclusive.” But, though in error 
in thinking that Raymundus himself used Jehova, Voisin proved 
that it was found in copies of the Pugio as far back as the four- 
teenth century.” 

A generation after Raymundus Martini, Victor Porchetus de 
Salvaticis wrote his Victoria contra Judaeos (1303) ," taken 
largely, as he expressly says, from the Pugio. In this work the 
tetragrammaton is regularly represented by Jod, He, Vau, He; but 
once or twice Jehova appears, and once Johovha |? sic]. This 
variation might suggest the surmise that the manuscript of the 
Pugio used by Porchetus was related to the Codex Majoricanus, 
in which both Jehova and Johova occur; without an examina- 
tion of the Victoria it is, however, impossible to determine this 
point, or even to be sure whether Porchetus himself wrote Jehova. 
But even if, in this case also, the introduction of the name be the 
work of copyists, the fact remains that it was in use before 
Galatinus. 

Voisin, in his polemic against Cappellus, assumes that Galati- 
nus got the name Jehova, with the rest of his learning, from the 
Pugio Fidei. It is, of course, entirely possible that Jehova was 


11In a letter to Casaubon in 1603; see Scaliger, Epistolae, etc., Ep. 84, cf. 90. 

12In the fourth of the manuscripts collated by Voisin (D), from the Monastery of St. 
Dominic in Toulouse, it is to be inferred from Voisin’s silence that the name did not occur 
at all. 

13Cod. Majoricanus was written in 1381; the age of the other manuscripts used by 
Voisin is not given. 

14 Printed by Justiniani, Paris, 1520. I have not succeded in finding a copy of this book. 

15 Reland, Decas, 90, n. ὃ. 


148 NoTES ON THE NAME ΓΠ ΓΙ" 


found somewhere in the manuscript of the Pugio which Galatinus 
used;'* but it is to be observed that there is no indication of such 
dependence; and, on the other hand, that the only connection in 
which Jehova occurs in the De Arcanis is in a formal discussion 
of the question how the Tetragrammaton should be pronounced, a 
question not raised in the Pugio at all. Moreover, as we shall see, 
Galatinus’ own words make it perfectly clear that the pronuncia- 
tion Jehova was current in his time. 

The De Arcanis," although it passed through at least five edi- 
tions in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries,” seems to be little 
known to modern scholars. The quotations from it in recent 
books are apparently derived—at several removes, with natural 
increment of errors—from Drusius; and detached from their con- 
nection, and garbled (as they frequently are), give an erroneous 
notion of the author’s position. Under these circumstances it will 
not, I trust, be thought superfluous to quote the context some- 
what fully. 

The work was written, with the encouragement of the Emperor 
Maximilian and of Pope Leo X, to sustain the cause of Reuchlin 
in his famous controversy with the Dominicans concerning the 
books of the Jews, by showing that the distinctive doctrines of 
Christianity can be proved from the talmudic and cabalistic 
literature. It is in the form of a dialogue, the speakers being 
Capnio (Reuchlin), Hogostratus (Hoogstraaten, the Prior of the 
Dominicans in Cologne, Reuchlin’s most bitter antagonist), and 
Galatinus. Galatinus is the principal speaker; Reuchlin plays the 
role of interrogator, and Hoogstraaten is an occasional objector. 
Almost everything in the book of any significance is taken from 
the Pugio Fidei, which Galatinus has not the grace even to name; 
what Galatinus adds from other sources is drawn chiefly from 
cabalistic writings, among which one entitled N77 "53 has a 
prominent place. 


16 Perhaps a Codex Neapolitanus noted by Possevinus; see Carpzov, Introductio, etc., 
p. 90. 

17The full title is: Opus toti christianae Reipublicae maxime utile, de arcanis catholi- 
cae veritatis, contra obstinatissimam Iudeorum nostri temporis perfidiam: ex Talmud, aliis- 
que hebraicis libris nuper excerptum, et quadruplici linguarum genere eleganter congestum. 

18 The Catalogue of the British Museum enumerates editions of 1518, 1550, 1561, 1603, 1672. 
I quote the editio princeps. 


GEORGE F. Moore 149 


It has been asserted, for example, by Maussacus, that Galatinus was 
by birth a Jew; perhaps on the same ground on which Justiniani 
suspected that Raymundus Martini was a Jew—he knew too much 
Hebrew to be a Christian. I have been unable to find any evidence 
pointing in that direction. That he had Jewish assistants may be 
regarded as certain. The conjecture, however, that Elias Levita served 
him in this capacity has no basis beyond the known relations of Elias to 
Cardinal Egidio and other Christian students of the Cabala. The pre- 
sumption is that the two Jews who adorn the back of the title-page with 
an acrostic and a rhymed poem in Hebrew in praise of Galatinus, and his 
book demolishing Hogostratus, were his helpers. One of these is named 
in the Latin title to his epigram “ Moses Aharon Hebraeus” (the acrostic 
itself bears WY Dwg), the other is “Ishac Hyspanus Hebraeus medi- 
cus physicus.” 


Book IT, chaps. ix—xvii, discuss the names of God; in chap. x, 
on the Tetragrammaton, after Galatinus has given extended 
extracts from the Galé razaia and from Maimonides on Shem 
Hamephorash, Reuchlin asks:" 


Dic obsecro, hoc nomen quatuor literarum, ut scriptum est, siue ut 
literae ipsae sonant, quomodo proferatur? 

Galatinus.— Quidam ex nostris aiunt hoc nomen in nostris literis 
sonare Ioua, a quo dicunt forte apud antiquos nomen Iouis irrepsisse. 
Sed maxime profecto errant, huiusmodi gentilitatis blasfemiam tam sancto 
nomini inferentes. Non enim hae quatuor literae, q5/7", si ut punctatae 
sunt legantur, Iova reddunt, sed (ut ipse optime nosti) Iehoua efficiunt. 
Quamuis Iudaei illud pronunciare ut scriptum est non audeant, sed loco 
eius "J7 Adonai, quod idem est quod Dominus, proferant. Qui autem 
in nostris literis Ioua sonare contendunt, id ex eo potissimum probare 
conantur, quod Hebraeorum grammatici dicunt, cum sceua aliqua litera- 
rum gucturis sequitur, plerunque et sceua ipsum et gucturis literam simul 
per synecopam auferri. Nam, exempli gratia, 7777" Iehuda non nun- 
quam 47>)° luda et scribitur et pronunciatur; et yw" Tehosua, yw)" 
Tosua; et Relig Tehoiachin, eee ae Toiachin; et O75 tehilim, p*>n 
tillim, et reliqua multa id genus. Quod similiter quoque in hoc nomine 
Dei magno fieri uolunt. Qua ex re illud Ioua apud nos sonare inferunt, 
cum in eo sceua litera he literam gucturis praecedat. Quod si uerum 
esset ipsum nomen non ΓΙ sed PT" sine sceua et he litera scribe- 

TPs τ 
retur. Et sic non tetragrammaton, siue quatuor literarum esset, sed 
trium dumtaxat. Quod nec cogitari quidem licet. Nefas enim est eo in 
nomine quicquam uel addi uel minui, sed sic omnino debet et scribi et 


19 Ed. 1518, fol. 48a. I preserve the spelling, but have resolved the abbreviations and 
modernized the punctuation. 


150 Notes ON THE NAME S717" 


pronunciari (si tamen pronunciandum est) sicut Deus ipse Mosi illud 
scribi debere mandauit. Quo cirea grammaticorum Hebraeorum regula 
quam inducunt in eo locum nullum habet, quamuis et in reliquis nusquam 
uel rarissime in sacris uiginti quatuor libris seruata reperiatur, sed in 
aliis fortasse tantum codicibus et praecipue apud Talmudistas. Ipsum 
igitur nomen Dei tetragrammaton cum sceua et he litera, quae lenem 
habet aspirationem, et scribi et pronunciari necesse est. Quare caueant, 
qui illud apud nos Ioua sonare affirmant. Non enim Ioua nec Ieoua, sed 
Tehoua, cum leni aspiratione, sicut scribitur, pronunciandum est. 


Somewhat farther on (fol. 49a), after the question has been 
answered why the Jews dare not utter the name, and it has been 
shown from Maimonides that it was pronounced in the temple, in 
the priests’ benediction, Reuchlin asks: 

Si hoe nomen apud eos (ut optime probasti) aliquando proferebatur, 
quamobrem igitur ineffabile dicebatur? Galatinus.— Hoc magno absque 
mysterio esse non potest. Non enim hoc nomen quo ad uocem ipsam 
nominis ineffabile dicitur, cum et ipsi (ut dictum est) quandoque pronun- 
ciarint, et aeque ut scriptum est facile proferri possit, si literae ipsae cum 


apicibus et punctis legantur. Ex ipsis enim (ut dictum est) haec uox 
Iehoua redditur. Sed quo ad mysterii significatum omnino ineffabile est. 


It is plain from Galatinus’ own words that among his contem- 
poraries the vowels of mi were commonly taken for the proper 
vowels of the name. Some of them, however, instead of pronoun- 
cing Jehova, as the points would naturally be read, were led by 
the seductive comparison with the Latin (Jupiter) Jovis to pro- 
nounce Jova, and defended the contraction by an ingenious gram- 
matical argument, which Galatinus refutes. The controversy, 
therefore, whether the name should be pronounced Jehova or Jova 
is older than Galatinus. Who the “Jovists” were against whom 
he argues, I do not know. The opinion that the name Jov-is 
was derived from im (or 74") was common in the sixteenth 


and seventeenth centuries ;” 


it inevitably suggested itself as soon 
as Christian scholars began to pronounce the name. In the 
controversy of the seventeenth century the resemblance to Jove 
was argued to prove that Jehovah was the true pronunciation. 


The form Jova, after the analogy of Judah for Jehudah, was pre- 
20 Later the tables were turned, and many scholars derived Jehovah from the Indo- 


European root from which the name Jove comes. Ed. Glaser, Jehowah-Jovis und die drei 
Séhne Noahs (1901), is the most recent discoverer of this etymological mare’s nest. 


ΟΕΟΒΘΕ F. Moore 151 


ferred by several scholars in the sixteenth century, and was ad- 
mitted as possible by some of those who preferred Jehova.” The 
question is, however, of no significance for our present purpose. 
The important point is that Galatinus did not introduce the pro- 
nunciation Jehova, but only defended it against those who pro- 
nounced ΓΤ" Jova. 

Nor have I been able to find any evidence that the common 
use of Jehova by scholars in the sixteenth century was due to the 
example and influence of Galatinus. 

A thorough investigation of the use of Jehovah in the first half 
of the sixteenth century has never been made. The following 
notes make no claim to completeness, but they include the authors 
whose example was most influential. 

Luther, in his translation of the Old Testament, follows the 
usage of the Church in rendering 717" by HERR, Lord; but 
in his own writings sometimes uses Jehovah. In an exposition of 
Jeremiah 23: 1-8,” originally delivered in two sermons, November 


18 and 25, 1526, and printed in 1527, he says (p. 569): 


Es hat die Ebreische sprache fast bey zehen nahmen, damit sie Gott 
nennet,” unter wilchen yhr viel sind, damit sie Gott von seinen wercken 
nennet; aber dieser nahme “Jehovah,” “HERR,” bedeut allein Gott, wie 
er ist ynn seinem Géttlichen wesen. Diese unterschied kiinnen wir ynn 
unser sprache nicht. halten; wir Deudschen heissens alles “Herr” und 
kiinnen das wort “ Herr” nicht zwingen, das es Gott allein heisse; denn 
wir heissen ein Fiirsten herr, ein hausvater heisst man auch ein herrn, 
ist uns Deudschen fast gemeyn. Das wir aber Gott auch ein Herrn 
nennen, haben wir aus den Evangelisten, die heissen yhn “Dominum,” 
Herr, den folgen wir nach und lassens auch dabey bleiben. Die andern 
nahmen ynn Ebreischen werden nicht allein Gotte zu geschrieben, sondern 
werden auch zu andern leuten gesagt; aber dieser nahme “ Jehovah,” 
Herr, gehért alleine dem waren Gott zu. 


It is noteworthy that this passage occurs, not in an academic 
lecture or a commentary addressed to the learned, but in a sermon, 
immediately published as a popular pamphlet. The name Jehovah 


21See below, p. 152. 


22 Kritische Gesammtausgabe, XX, 547 ff. In the brief Latin report of the sermon (Rorer) 
Jehovah does not appear. The title of the pamphlet is, Ein epistel aus dem Propheten Jere- 
mia, von Christus reich und Christlichen freyheit, gepredigt durch Mar, Luther. Witten- 
berg, 1527. 


23 Jerome, Ep. 25, ad Marcellam, De decem nominibus Dei. 


152 ΝΟΤΕΞ ON THE NAME ST?" 


is not introduced as something new; on the contrary, it is used as 
if it was familiar to the hearers or readers.” 

Jehovah appeared in the English Bible in Tyndale’s translation 
of the Pentateuch (1530) in Exod. 6:3, ‘but in my name Iehouah 
was I not knowne unto them,” and maintained itself in the whole 
succession of English Protestant versions, except Coverdale (1535). 
The margin of Matthews’ Bible (1537), on Exod. 6:38, has the 
note, ‘‘Iehouah is the name of god wherewith no creature is named, 
& is as moch to say as one that is of hymselfe & dependeth of no 
thing.” 

Sebastian Minster, in his notes on Exod. 3:15, and on 6:3 
(where Jehova stands in his text), accompanying his Latin trans- 
lation of the Old Testament (1534, 1535), uses the name as though 
it were well known. The Jews, he says, infer from the words ‘‘this 
is my memorial (757) forever” (3:15), “nomen Domini tetra- 
grammaton non proferendum secundum dispositionem literarum 
et punctorum; sed in animo tantum commemorari debet, non 
autem labiis exprimi . . . . Atque adeo haec superstitio inva- 
luit apud Judaeos, ut obstupescant ad prolationem hujus nominis, 
si forte a Christiano audiant ipsum pronunciari, timeantque ruere 
coelum.” Leo Judae used Jehova in his Latin version (1543), 
in Exod. 6:3, and has a note on the significance of the name. 
Paulus Fagius, a pupil of Elias Levita, in the notes on his trans- 
lation of the Targum of Onkelos (1546), at Exod. 6:3, says of the 
name, ‘‘quod juxta elementa et puncta quidem >" Jehovah 
sonat.”’”> Castalio, who uses Jova throughout his Latin transla- 
tion (1551; Pentateuch, 1546), in his note on Gen. 2:4 justifies 
this pronunciation against those who denied that the points of 
mi were its own vowels by citing Josaphat, Joram, Hallelujah, 
etc. Servetus uses Jehovah, from which Jove is derived:” “‘Touem 
illi [sc. the Romans | dixerunt, ex antiqua traditione Hebraeorum, 

24 Bottcher, in a note in his Lehrbuch der hebrdischen Sprache, I, 49, says that Luther, 
‘as is well known,” never uses the name in his popular writings, though in his learned exe- 


getical works he shows his familiarity with it. Singularly enough, the passage above quoted 
is one of those which he cites! 


25 In Zwingli’s writings, so far as a hasty examination shows, the word Jehovah is not 
used, 


26Fagius was acquainted with Galatinus, whom he quotes on Exod, 3:15. 
27 Christianismi Restitutio (1553), p. 125 ff., see esp. p. 133. 


GrorGE F. Moore 153 


Deum Ioua appellantium. JIoua indeclinabile, inflexione quadam 
est versum in Iouem, Ioua autem est dictum pro ΚΠ] Iehova, 
cum scheua in capite non profertur, et aspirationis prolatio omit- 
titur, ut in ea lingua passim fit.”* In 1557 Jehova got established 
in the dictionary,” and in the same year was introduced through- 
out the Old Testament in Stephanus’ edition of Pagninus’ Latin 
version.” In Calvin’s commentaries on the Psalms (1557) and 
on the Pentateuch (1563) 7" is uniformly rendered by Jehova.” 
Tremellius—a Jew by birth—employs Jehova throughout his 
translation (1575), though he was aware that the points belonged 
not to TW but to "78." Similarly A. R. Cevallerius, a son-in- 
law of Tremellius, in his Rudimenta Hebraicae Linguae (1559),” 
gives Jehovah as the equivalent of the Tetragrammaton, yet else- 
where explains that the vowels are those of "ΣΝ οἷ 

The examples last cited show that the pronunciation Jehovah 
was by this time so firmly established that even scholars who knew 
that it was a hybrid used it as a matter of course. 

Among the Catholic scholars of the sixteenth century the use 
of Jehovah was probably less common than among Protestants, 
partly because of the stronger hold of the Vulgate; but it was 
employed constantly by a man of no less influence in his time 
than Cardinal Thomas de Vio Cajetanus in his Commentary on 
the Pentateuch (1531) ;” his translation of Gen. 2:4, for example, 
has Iehoua Elohim, and on Exod. 6:3 he notes, ‘‘Juxta Hebraeum 
habetur: Iehouah Elohe patrum vestrorum visus est mihi.” 
According to Stephanus, Sanctes Pagninus, one of the most learned 
Hebraists of his age, used Jehova in his annotations.” Hierony- 
mus ab Oleastro in his commentary on the Pentateuch (Genesis 


28 Observe the argument of Galatinus’ Jovists. 
29Toann. Forster, Dictionarium Hebraicum Novum, pp. 208-211. 
30 See below, pp. 155f. 


31 The text of the harmony of Exod.—Deut. is substantially that of Sebastian Minster, 
slightly revised, and with Jehova consistently introduced. 


32 Drusius, Decas, 85 f., from manuscript notes of Tremellius’ lectures on Isa. 1:2. 
33 Ed. 1567, p. 195. 
34 Drusius, Decas, 88; Letter of Cevallerius to the Bp. of Ely, 1569, 


35 Cajetanus knew no Hebrew, but he had a very literal translation made for him by the 
collaboration ofa Jew and a Christian Hebraist (Fritzsche, PRE?, VIII, 462). 


36 See below, p. 155. 


] 


154 Notes ON THE NAME ΓΙ ΓΙ" 


1556, Exodus 1557), derived Jehova from mn, making it mean 
“Destroyer” (sc. of the Egyptians and Canaanites),” an etymol- 
ogy which Daumer rediscovered. Marcus Marinus admitted 
Jehova to his Lexicon, Arca Noae (1593). In the seventeenth 
century Jehova appears in the commentaries of Estius (1621), 
Menochius (1630), and Tirinus. Malvenda (+1628) is the first in 
whom I have found the name written with the consonants alone, 
Ihuh (e. g., Gen. 2: 4, 8); ordinarily he writes Jehu (e. g. Ps. 
τ 8:2): 

It is a singular error to assume, as scholars seem generally to 
have done, that the pronunciation Jehovah originated with any 
single author, and was propagated in one direct line of ρου τας 
succession. In the massoretic text the name is written min ”, with- 
out any indication, such as in ordinary cases of substitution is given 
in the margin, that the points are not the proper vowels of the 
word; nor is the substitution included in the massoretic category 
of Keré and Ketib.* Christian scholars knew that the Jews did 
not pronounce the name, reading Adonai instead; but they gen- 
erally regarded this as a superstitious scruple. If the better 
informed among them were aware that Jewish grammarians held 
the vowels of m7 to belong to "278," two answers would occur; 
first, the vowels are manifestly not those of "ITN, and, second, 
compound names such as ὌΞΟΣ: and Posy prove that the 
punctuation mt gives the true vowels of the tetragrammaton.” 
There is every ‘probability that many Christian scholars indepen- 
dently, reading what actually stood written in the Hebrew text, 
pronounced the name Jehova or Jova. It is therefore, a bootless 
inquiry who first made this inevitable blunder; it is certain that 
Galatinus was neither the first nor the last. 

Genebrardus, in his Chronologia (1567), inveighing against 
the pronunciation Jova or Jehova, attributes the introduction of 
this error, not to Galatinus, as Drusius and his followers do, but 


37 Drusius, Decas, 66, n. 

38The term Keré perpetuum, applied to it by modern grammarians, appears to be a fig- 
ment of their own. 

39 See, e. g., Elias Levita, Massoreth ha-Massoreth (1538), Pt. II, §9 (ed. C. D. Ginsburg, 
1867, p. 233). 

40 Both these arguments are, in fact, persistently repeated by the defenders of the pro- 
nunciation Jehovah from the seventeenth century to the nineteenth. 


GEORGE F. Moore 155 


to Sanctes Pagninus, ‘‘si modo ab haereticis non sit corruptus.”” 


In the original edition of Pagninus’ translation of the Old Testa- 
ment (1527) the name Jehovah does not occur, nor is it found in 
his Thesaurus Linguae Sanctae (1529) ; but in Robert Stephanus’ 
edition of Pagninus’ version (1557),” Jehova is uniformly put for 
my. Ina note on Ps. 2:1 Stephanus remarks that the substi- 
tution of Adonai is to be rejected as a Jewish superstition, and 
continues: “Nonnulli nomen ipsum Jehova non mutant; nec ipse 
Sanctes in suis Annotationibus manuscriptis, quas apud me 
asservo: quos et secuti sumus.”* In the Preface, also, Stepha- 
nus refers to these annotations: his reprint of Pagninus’ version 
was based on two copies of the preceding edition containing the 
author’s manuscript corrections and revisions; “‘venerunt etiam 
in manus nostras ejusdem Sanctis in V. T. annotationes, ex qui- 
bus ibidem omnia quae ad hujus interpretationis recognitionem 
pertinebant sedulo excerpsimus.” 

The notes in Stephanus’ edition were vehemently impugned 
by the theologians of the Sorbonne, who complained that he made 
the orthodox name of Vatablus* cover a compilation taken largely 
from the works of Swiss Protestants; but there is no reason to 
question the explicit statements quoted above. The time at which 
the annotations of Pagninus were written is not known. His 
translation of the Old Testament, with which it may be surmised 
that they were contemporaneous, was completed, after twenty-five 
years of labor, before 1518, although it was not printed until 1527. 

There is another edition of Pagninus’ version, published at 
Lyons in 1542, with a preface and marginal scholia by Servetus 
(‘Michael Villanovanus”), in which, also, reference is made to 
the manuscript notes of Pagninus. Servetus writes: “In ipsa 
Pagnini nostri versione non parum est nobis post omnia ejus 


41 Ed. Paris, 1600, pp. 79 f. 


42 The Vulgate and Pagninus’ new version in parallel columns, with annotations, This 
edition I have not been able to see; but the lemmata of Stephanus’ notes (reprinted in the 
Critici Sacri under the name of “ Vatablus’’), and the Basel reprint of Pagninus (1564), 
which is said by Le Long-Masch accurately to reproduce Stephanus’ text of 1557, make the 
fact certain. 


43 See also on Exod. 6:3. 


44 Vatablus was Professor of Hebrew in the Collége de France; he died in 1547, having 
published nothing. Stephanus used notes of his lectures taken down by students. 


156 Notes ON THE NAME 7" 


annotamenta desudatum: annotamenta inquam, quae ille nobis 
quam plurima reliquit. Nec solum annotamenta, sed et exemplar 
ipsum locis innumeris propria manu castigatum.” A second 
preface, by Joh. Nic. Victorius, informs the reader that the 
differences of the Lyons edition from the preceding (Cologne, 
1541) are the result of a revision by the author himself, so 
thorough ‘‘ut nunc non tam restituta, quam primum edita videri 
possit.”"” Victorius, also, speaks of Pagninus’ annotations, which 
were in the possession of his heir,” and expresses the desire that 
a publisher might be found for them.” 

It appears, therefore, that Stephanus used for his edition the 
same apparatus which Victorius and Servetus had in their hands 
for the Lyons edition. The descriptions of the exceedingly rare 
Lyons edition do not make it possible to determine with certainty 
whether Jehova was introduced in it; on the whole, I incline to 
think that it was not. 

While the pronunciation Jehovah was thus widely current in 
the sixteenth century, its correctness was not universally admitted. 
Some scholars recognized that the points of 7" belonged to the 
substitute, ΠΝ ; it was a mistake to read the consonants of one 
word with the vowels of another; how the name was really pro- 
nounced in Old Testament times could be inferred only from 
external tradition or from grammatical analogy. Mercerus, the 
successor of Vatablus in Paris, gives a warning against the recent 
fashion of reading ΓΙ with the vowels of ΝΣ or DVDN, 
Jehova or Jehovi.* If the name is to be pronounced it would 
be better to read it TW", Jeheveh, after the analogy of TN 
in Exod. 3:14. Genebrardus condemns the pronunciation Iowa 
or Iehoua as ‘‘aliena, imo vero irreligiosa, imperita, nova et 
barbara... . ut contra Calvinianos et Bezanos multis locis 


45The extent of these differences appears to be greatly exaggerated in these prefaces. 
Mosheim (Anderweitiger Versuch einer vollstindigen und unpartheyischen Ketzergeschichte, 
1748, p. 89) affirms that the changes are neither numerous nor important. See also Le Long- 
Masch, 11, 477f. 

46 Pagninus died in Lyons, in 1541. 

47 Rosenmiiller, Biblische Litteratur, LV, 174 ff. 


48 On Gen. 2:4; cf. on Exod. 3:13 (Drusius, Decas, 82f.; Cappellus, ibid., 317); see also 
his additions to the article ΚΓ in his edition of Pagninus’ Thesawrus (1577). Mercerus 
(a Protestant) succeeded Vatablus in Paris in 1546, and died in 1570. His commentaries were 
not published till after his death (Minor Prophets, 1583, Genesis, 1598). 


GEORGE F. Moore 157 


docuimus.”*” “Vel ejus genuina prolatio per temporis longin- 


quitatem et longam ob eversum templum desuetudinem oblivioni 
tradita est, vel est IThwé (Ieué habet Ioachimus Abbas in I Apoc.) 
vel Jahué” (cujus apocope sit Jah in illo vulgato Halelu Iah) 
ἰαβαὶ, ut Theodoritus in Epitome divinarum dogmatum Samaritas 
protulisse ait.” Arias Montanas explains that the vowels of 
ΓΙ; Wim, belong to "27N and DVDN respectively:" ‘“Nostri 
hujus rationis ignari Jehovah pronuntiant.” ‘Si vero certam 
quandam ex aliorum similium nominum ratione indicare pronun- 
tiationem fas est, Jeveh dicendum est, atque ita existimo veteres 
illos pronuntiasse, tum Israelitas, tum ex aliis gentibus homines, 
ad quos nominis hujus et Dei ipsius notitia pertinuit.” Bellarmin 
asserts that that the true pronunciation is unknown; the points 
belong to "J78 (which he proves with conclusive grammatical 
reasons); the name should therefore not be read Iehoua.” It is 
noteworthy that no one of the scholars of the sixteenth century 
who reject the pronunciation Jehovah lays the responsibility for 
the blunder upon Galatinus. 

The controversy so hotly waged in the seventeenth century was 
opened by Drusius, Tetragrammaton (1604). The advocates of 
Jehovah had much the worst of the argument, but they had on 
their side an established usage upon which argument made no 
impression. Learned defenses of this usage continued to be made 
from time to time in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries; for 
example, by J. D. Michaelis (1192), Rudolph Stier,” and Héle- 
mann.” It is interesting, in the light of his later writings, to 
know that Ewald, in his earliest publication (1823), entered the 
lists not only for the unity of Genesis, but for the pronunciation 
Jehovah. At another time I shall show that the current opinion 
that Ewald is the author of the pronunciation Jahveh is one of the 


49 Chronologia (1567) ; ed. Paris, 1600, pp. 79f.; Comment. in Psalmos, Praefat. (the latter 
TI have not seen). 


50 This is, so far as I know, the first suggestion of the pronunciation Jahveh, now 
generally accepted. 


51 Joseph, sive de Arcano Sermone (in the Antwerp Polyglot, T. VII, 1572), p. 4. 


52 Institutiones Linguae Hebraicae (1578); ed. Colon. 1616, pp. 284f.; cf. his exposition 
of Ps. 8:1. 


63 Supplementa ad Lexica Hebraica, I, p. 524. 
54 Lehrgebdude der hebrdischen Sprache. 55 Bibelstudien (1859), 54 ff. 


158 ΝΟΤΕΞ ON THE NAME 57" 


legends of learning, of the same sort with the Galatinus myth.” 
The pronunciation Jahveh was “propounded” in the sixteenth 
century, and it stood in the pages of the Lexicon in most general 
use in Germany (Eichhorn’s Simonis) ten years before Ewald was 
born. Gesenius had adopted it when Ewald was still defending 
Jehovah (1823). 


Il. “JEVE” in JoacHiM oF FIORE 


Genebrardus, in a passage quoted above (p. 157), observes that 
Joachim, in his commentary on the first chapter of the Apocalypse 
(written about the year 1200),” has the form Jeve. Attention was 
called to this fact a few years ago by Franz Delitzsch, who had 
come upon it in a manuscript containing a part of this commen- 
tary.* A more recent hand had written in the margin, at the first 
occurrence of Jeve, the gloss Iehovah. Delitzsch adds: “Ein 
Stick urkundlicher Geschichte der Aussprache des Tetragram- 
matons innerhalb der Kirche lag vor mir.’’ Delitzsch assumes 
that Joachim’s [eve represents a traditional Jewish pronunciation 
77, and thinks that a trace of such a tradition may be found in 
Rabbi Samuel ben Meir on Exod. 3:15; 7" in vs. 15 was read 
with the vowels of HIN, vs. 14. This interpretation of the mysti- 
fication in Rashbam seems to me doubtful; but with that I am 
not immediately concerned. It can be shown, I think, that [eve 
in Joachim did not have its origin in pronunciation at all, but in 
a trite cabalistic play on the consonants of 717". 

In his commentary on Apoc. 1:8 Joachim has a long disqui- 
sition on the name of God, combining the “Α et O” of the Apoca- 
lypse with Exod. 3:14 f.; 6:3, in which he writes the name 
constantly IEVE.” The part which bears upon the question in 
hand is as follows:” 


Populo autem Iudeorum, etsi tribus suprascriptis modis in deo omni- 
potente apparuit, docens se esse trinum et unum deum, nomen tamen 


56 See 6. g., Encyclopaedia Biblica (III), 3320: ‘The controversy as to the correct pro- 
nunciation of the tetragrammaton.... has been gradually brought to an end by the general 
adoption of the view, first propounded by Ewald, that the true form is Yahwe.” 


57 Published in Paris, 1254. 

58 Zeitschrift fiir die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, ΤΙ (1882), 173 f. 
59 Hapositio ... in Apocalipsim (Venet., 1527), fol. 8380, ff. 

60 Op. cit., fol. 35a, f. I modernize the punctuation. 


Grorce F. Moore 159 


suum IEVE, quod Hebrei legunt Adonay, non indicauit eis, quia esse se 
trinum et unum deum non illis per specialem intellectum aperuit quousque 
verus ille Moyses, mediator dei et hominum Christus Iesus; qui cum 
instaret hora passionis sue ut transiret ex hoc mundo ad patrem, post 
multa que locutus est discipulis suis, adiecit et ait: Jam non dicam vos 
seruos, quia seruus nescit quid faciat dominus eius; vos autem dixi ami- 
cos, quod omnia quecunque audiui a patre meo nota feci vobis. Quando 
autem dixit hoe verbum, nisi cum nomen illud ineffabile, quod est IEVE, 
notum fecit illis, loquens eis manifeste de spiritu sancto et de patre, et de 
gloria maiestatis sue, dicens: Ego in patre et pater in me est? etc. [John 
MASS 167: «τ τος Et quia tam aperte docuit esse tres personas coeternas 
5101 et coequales, unum scilicet et trinum deum, quod est dicere IEVE, 
oportebat nihilominus eum docere, que istarum personarum ingenita 
esset, que autem genita, et que procedens, quod in subsequentibus luce 
clarius manifestat cum dicit: Cum venerit paraclitus, quem ego mittam 
vobis a patre, spiritum veritatis, qui a patre procedit, ille testimonium 
perhibebit de me. 

For Joachim, therefore, the name J EVE imports the mystery 
of the Trinity. A little further on he writes (fol. 356): 

Sciendum est igitur, quod nomen illud venerabile, quod congrue satis 
ineffabile dicitur tam ab Hebreis quam a Latinis, pronuntiatur Adonay; 
et tamen in Hebreo non eisdem characteribus quibus scriptum est pro- 
nuntiatur, sed aliis. Scribitur enim quatuor literis, propter quod et apud 
Grecos thethragrammaton nominatur, cuius inscriptio ista est, IEVE. 
Est autem nomen istud, ut tradunt peritissimi Hebreorum, tante virtutis 
ut si distinguatur in tribus dictionibus ad hoc ut sigillatim proferatur, 
IE sigillatim, EV sigillatim, VE, singula distinctio integritatem sui 
nominis habeat, et si proferatur simul, ΓΕ ΕΣ, unitatem demonstret. 

If, now, he continues, these three monosyllabic namesare written 
in a triangle, A,” each of the three will have its own perfection, 
each the distinctive attribute (proprietas) of some one person; 
and, what is more, the second name springs (propagatur) from 
the first, and the third from the second, in such a way that one 
cannot be pronounced without the other. These syllables are not 
divided in pronunciation, but the V (vowel) blends with the pre- 
ceding and following so that the enunciation is a unit. Joachim 
employs diagrams to show this, as follows (fol. 35b, 36a): 


Te 
Vane 
εν Υ͂ 


61 


8 
Ss 


160 NoTES ON THE NAME 7" 


Scribendum est enim simplicitur quatuor literis istis, ΓΕ ΕΣ, et tamen 
legendum primo IE, EV, VE, deinde IEVE; quod, ut diligenter ostendi 
queat, literis quidem formatis nomen ipsum scribendum est, pronuntia- 
tiones vero ipsius clausulis minutissimis designande, verbi gratia, 


ie ue 
IE——VE ieue 


eu 


Et quid magis hoc mysterio veritati vicinum? Certe vides scriptum 
quatuor literis ineffabile nomen; certe vides—immo nondum in toto 
vides—quanta profunditas sacramenti contegatur in eo. Unde et non 
immerito ab Hebreis scribitur quidem sed non profertur, quod si temptas 
in eo quod mente distinguitur lingua proferre, desinit esse tetragrama- 
ton; ideoque melius mente percipitur quam lingua ministerio personatur. 


IE is one name; EV is one name; VE is one name; yet [EVE 
is not three names but one. Just so in the Trinity: the Father 
is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God; yet these are not 
three Gods but one. If the three names are written in a triangle 
you have the letter A; if IEVE be inclosed in a circle, O— 
trinity in unity. 

Joachim observes, further, (fol. 37a) that there are only three 
different letters in the name, [EV (E being repeated), and finds 
in this, too, an allegorical significance. 

Galatinus likewise discovers the mystery of the Trinity in the 
three syllables of Jehova.” 

Capnio asks: 


Quid tres huius nominis [sc. Iehova] syllabae significant? Galati- 
nus.— Tres utique personas diuinas. Quemadmodum enim unaquaeque 
huius nominis syllaba (ut aiunt Cabalistae) id totum significat, quod 
totum nomen ipsum importat, ita quaelibet diuina persona, cum perfectus 
Deus sit, totam in se continet diuinitatem; nec diuinitas ipsa magis est 
in tribus personis simul quam sit in unaquaque, sed tota est in unaqua- 
que et tota in tribus. Tres igitur huius nominis syllabae tres diuinas 
designant personas, quarum unaquaeque est uerus et perfectus Deus ... . 
Et sicut tres huiusce nominis syllabae simul sumptae unum nomen effici- 
unt, ita tres personae diuinae sunt unus Deus. Capnio.—Quae sunt illa 
diuina nomina, quae ueteres Hebraeorum ex quatuor literis huius nominis 
componi asseruerunt? Galatinus.—Haec, sive Fy" iah, 34 hu, 34 uehu.® 

Tr : 


62 De Arcanis, fol. 50b ὁ, 


63 Galatinus distorts the tradition for the sake of his interpretation; the third, as he 
himself says just below, must be ®}. See also Petrus Alphonsi, quoted below, p. 162. 


GrorGE F. Moore 161 


Primum enim ex prima et secunda componitur litera, sive ex iod et he 
hoe modo 7" iah, quod idem est quod Deus et patrem designat, qui 


totius diuinitatis fons est. Secundum uero nomen ex secunda et tertia 
constat litera, sic 374 hu, quod ipse interpretatur et filium significat .... 
Tertium denique nomen ex tertia et quarta constituitur litera, sive ex 
uau et he; sic 377) vehu, et id totum sonat quod et ipse, et spiritum 


sanctum denotat... . 


Galatinus remarks (fol. 51a) that 4 is common to the first and 
second names, ) to the second and third; from which the consub- 
stantiality of the Father and the Son, the Son and the Spirit 
follows. 

Raymundus Martini had remarked that there are but three dif- 
ferent letters, 7", in the Tetragrammaton, 1 being repeated, a 
fact of which he first makes an application to the person of the 
Messiah :™ 


Quando verd dicitur de Deo simpliciter, tunc, ut ait Magister Petrus 
Alphonsi, qui fuit in Hispania, priusquam fieret Christianus, magnus 
Rabinus apud Judaeos, tres literae priores hujus nominis, scilicet 44°, 
indicant in Deo hoc nomine vocato tres esse ΠῚ, id est, proprietates ἃ 
seipsis invicem differentes ex sua diversitate, quam habent tam in figura 
quam in nomine, ut praedictum est. Una verd earum quae repetitur et in 
fine nominis ponitur, quae est 7, et est prima in hoc nomine ΓΙ ἽΓῚ Essen- 
tia, indicat trium 77972, id est, proprietatum vel personarum, unitatem 
Kssentiae. 


Petrus Alphonsi, to whom Raymundus refers, was baptized in 
1106, in the forty-fourth year of his age. After his conversion 
he wrote a controversial Dialogue to refute the Jews and demon- 
strate the Christian faith.” The Jewish disputant in the Dialogue 
bears Petrus’ own name before his baptism, Moses. In the chap- 
ter on the Trinity,” Petrus undertakes to prove, from the name 
iis itself, that there must be just three persons in the Trinity. 
I quote the whole passage in order that the dependence of Joachim 
upon it may appear more evidently.” 


64 Pugio Fidei, fol. 540, ed. Voisin. 


65 First printed in Cologne in 1536, under the (publisber’s) title: Dialogi lectu dignissimi, 
in quibus impiae Judaeorum opiniones... . confutantur, etc. Reprinted (with a different 
title) in the Bibliotheca Patrum (Lyons), XXI, 172 ff., and thence in Migne, Patrologia 
Latina, CLYVII, 535-672. 

66 Migne, 606 ff. 

67 Migne, 611. Voisin in his notes on the Pugio (fol. 556) quotes part of this paragraph 


162 ΝΟΤΕΞ ON THE NAME 47" 


Trinitas quidem subtile quid est ineffabile, et ad explanandum dif- 
ficile, de qua prophetae non nisi occulte locuti sunt et sub velamine, quo- 
adusque venit Christus, qui de tribus una personis, fidelium illam menti- 
bus pro eorum revelavit capacitate. Si tamen attendas subtilius, et illud 
Dei nomen, quod in Secretis Secretorum®™ explanatum invenitur, inspicias, 
ΓΤ, nomen inquam trium litterarum, quamvis quatuor figuris, una 
namque de illis geminata bis scribitur, si inquam illud inspicias, videbis 
quia idem nomen et unum sit et tria. Sed quod unum est, ad unitatem 
substantiae, quod vero tria, ad trinitatem respicit personarum. Constat 
autem nomen illud his quatuor figuris, " et et ἢ et (J, quarum si 
primam tantum conjunxeris et secundam, ® scilicet et J, erit sane nomen 
unum. Item sisecundam et tertiam, 7 scilicet et ἢ, jam habebis alterum. 
Similiter, si tertiam tantum copulaveris atque quartam, scilicet ἢ et 7, 
invenies et tertium. Rursus si omnes simul in ordine connexueris, non 
erit nisi nomen unum, sicut in ista patet geometrali figura 


pa 
@ 


A comparison of this passage with that quoted above from 
Joachim’s commentary on the Apocalypse proves that Joachim, 
in his speculations on the Tetragrammaton, is dependent (directly 
or indirectly) on Petrus Alphonsi: his IEVE is merely a trans- 
literation of 777", the Latin Εἰ standing for He. That Joachim 
pronounced the name Jewe, with its constituents 76, eu, we, and 
exercised his phonetic ingenuity upon it, in no way militates 
against this origin. His other departures from Petrus’ scheme 
are the consequence of the fact that his starting-point is the A 
and O of Apoc. 1:8; which leads him to dispose the syllables in 
a triangle (A), and then the whole name in a circle (O), instead 
of in intersecting circles within a circle. His insistence that in 
pronunciation the vocalic V blends with the preceding E and the 
following E (IE V E) is his substitute for Petrus’ geometrical 
demonstration by intersecting circles. 

The tradition of the “‘peritissimi Hebraeorum”’ to which Joa- 
chim appeals is not, therefore, as Delitzsch imagined, a traditional 


68 See below, p. 163. 


GEORGE F. Moore 163 


pronunciation, but a cabalistic combination of the letters of the 
written name, as, indeed, Galatinus and Petrus expressly say. 

Petrus Alphonsi cites specifically the Secreta Secretorum as a 
book in which the name 577" is (cabalistically) explained.” 
This reference is of considerable interest on its own account. The 
Hebrew title was presumably D°77 "iD or OM Ὅ, and the 
citation of this work in a writing of the early part of the twelfth 
century is an important datum in the intricate history of the 
“Raziel”’ literature. 


69 Doubtless with permutations of the letters of F171), as in the Sepher Yesirah. 


THE RHYTHMS OF THE ANCIENT 
HEBREWS 


WILLIAM R. ARNOLD 


THE RHYTHMS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS 
Wititiam R. ARNOLD 


For over a hundred years, and most persistently during our 
own generation, efforts have been made to discover the principles 
underlying the versification of the ancient Hebrews. These 
attempts have for the most part confined themselves to a search 
for “meter” by means of mechanical experiments upon the poetry 
of the Old Testament, such as the counting of syllables, with or 
without the attribution to them of commensurate quantity, and 
the counting of words or word-accents. 

In 1901, however, appeared the Studien zur hebrdischen Me- 
trik of Eduard Sievers. That eminent Germanic scholar, who had 
come into the land in response to a Macedonian appeal from the 
ranks of the Hebraists, began by insisting that the material limi- 
tations of verse are not imposed for their own sake, but to meet 
the demands of some definite rhythmic form which they aim to 
realize. Unless the meter discovered succeeds in effecting a 
rhythmical movement when the poetry is rendered in accordance 
with its rubrics, it can have no purposed existence, and is not 
worth discovering. 

This was of course the fundamental (though in large measure 
unconsciously entertained) reason why all previous theories and 
systems of Hebrew meter had been rejected by so many Hebrew 
scholars. Students of the Old Testament, like other men, have 
no difficulty in recognizing rhythm when they meet it, however 
unable they may be to point out with exactness wherein the essence 
of it consists. The specific objection which Sievers formulated 
against the theory of Ley, for example, was implied, together with 
other objections which the former fails to perceive, in the general 
dissent of Ley’s contemporaries.' Had the latter’s system done 


1Nor did the objection lack formal statement. In an article which appeared in the 
Zeitschrift fiir alttestamentliche Wissenschaft in the autumn of 1901, but which was in the 
hands of the editor, the late Professor Stade, in the summer of 1900, the present writer used 
these words (p. 229, note): ‘If the interval between beats coincide with that between word- 
accents, the poetry of the Old Testament cannot possibly be rendered without emasculating 


167 


108 RHYTHMS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS 


anything to enhance the beauty of the language, it would have 
been accepted with alacrity, we may be sure. But such rhythm 
as the poetry of the Old Testament yielded when read with no 
conscious attempt at rhythmization, obviously did not proceed 
from the principles of Ley’s system, since the latter was powerless 
to furnish a solvent for the difficulties of rhythmization which 
remained. 

This situation Sievers proceeded to remedy. He set himself 
to discover the rhythm of Hebrew poetry, and then to determine 
the meter upon the basis of the rhythm. What he has done in 
form is to posit as the rhythmic base of all Hebrew versification 
an “‘irrational anapaestic foot,’ composed of two unaccented syl- 
lables followed by one accented one, the three being of incom- 
mensurate individual, though of approximately fixed aggregate, 
duration. This base is represented by the formulaxa-s. All 
Hebrew rhythm is irrational, its constitutive time-lengths being 
indefinite and incommensurate; and all Hebrew meters are mul- 
tiples of this foot, # « +, with its several modifications, x + or + by 
absorption, x x ~ x by resolution (in the body of the line), and 
ὦ ὦ ὦ Σ or xxx ex by way of exception at the beginning of 
aline. What Sievers has done in substance is, first, to weaken 
the superficial objections to the metrical system of Ley by remoy- 
ing or altering those features of the Hebrew language which pal- 
pably interfere with the rendition of the poetry according to the 
measures of that system; and, second, to procure at any cost the 
accentuation of the final syllable of every clause. It is still mainly 
the number of accents that constitutes a line of Hebrew poetry. 
But one is no longer required to perform the physically impos- 
sible by pronouncing more than three unaccented syllables between 
two accented ones; and the verses are given a uniform accentual 
ending by unceremoniously conforming the few Hebrew words 
with penultimate to the many with ultimate accentuation. These 
elementary considerations—that two accented syllables can have 
no more than three unaccented syllables between them, and that 
the language..... It may be replied that the theory has nothing to do with any pulsatory 
accompaniment or with the measurement of intervals: it does not measure intervals, it 


counts accents. If so, the theory is empty..... It takes five rhythmic units to make a 
pentameter.”’ 


WILLIAM R. ARNOLD 169 


the majority of Hebrew words are accented on the last syllable— 
which, as we shall see, have properly nothing to do with rhythm, 
practically determine for Sievers all questions of Hebrew rhythm 
and meter. 

Though the projector of this system grows constantly more cer- 
tain of his position, and has since the issuance of his first publica- 
tion extended his so-called rhythms and meters to considerable 
sections of the historical narratives of the Old Testament, the gene- 
ral reception of his conclusions has been even less favorable than 
that which was accorded the theory of Ley. In fact, so little have 
his positive contributions commended themselves that even his 
negative criticisms of his predecessor, valid enough so far as they 
go, continue to be disregarded; and Ley still has adherents who 
count their “accents” and will have nothing to do with ‘‘feet.” 

Here again, I venture to affirm that the failure of Sievers’ 
views to meet with general acceptance is due not so much to the 
penalties he levies upon the Hebrew language, grievous and unlaw- 
ful as these penalties are—in this age of the making of all things 
new, a following is not refused upon so prosaic a ground as that. 
It is rather that, though his accents and syllables are marshaled 
in due order, the sound of his ‘‘rhythms”’ is intolerable to the ear 
of the trained Semitist, and no amount of argument or assevera- 
tion will serve to alter the matter. If it is true that meter does 
not exist for its own sake, it is just as true that rhythm never 
yet existed for its own sake. Quite apart from the specific muti- 
lations of individual words, the mere fact that a certain way of 
reading the poetry of a language makes the general sound of it 
disagreeable to those who know it best, is enough to show that if 
such reading be a rhythmization, it is a rhythmization which the 
genius of the language will not endure. The rhythmization of 
poetry must give pleasure to those who understand the poetry. 
To quote the expressive New England phrase, ‘‘The proof of the 
pudding is in the eating.’’” 

Fortunately, however, there is no need of employing generaliza- 
tions in this matter. Whether or not Sievers is in error as to the 


2Nor has a rhythmization which appeals to the proper tribunal for judgment any need 
of transliterated texts—to the uninitiated, vanity, and to the initiated, the abomination of 
desolation. 


170 RHYTHMS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS 


proper reading of Hebrew poetry, is a question which will take 
care of itself, if it can be shown that he is egregiously in error in 
the matter of his presuppositions in the domain of rhythm. 
There is no such thing as irrational rhythm, and the essence of 
rational rhythm is not what Sievers holds it to be. 


In truth it is no discredit to Old Testament science that after 
the labor of all these years the question of the meter of Hebrew 
verse is still an open one. No question of meter can be settled 
satisfactorily without some idea of the rhythms which the measured 
composition aims to produce. When now, as with our own Eng- 
lish and the other modern versifications, the modes of rhythmiza- 
tion and with them the incarnate rhythms are transmitted in con- 
crete form from one generation to another, it becomes a matter of 
purely scientific interest to ascertain which elements in the com- 
position are, and which are not, of the essence of the rhythm. 
Such indisputable, scientific information is notoriously lacking in 
the case of all our modern versifications. Nevertheless, neither 
verse nor rhythm will perish from the earth for the want of it. 
But when the stream of transmission has been cut off, and the 
task is to breathe a fitting rhythm into the corpse of other-world 
and strange-tongued measures which for ages have lain dead, it 
becomes of the first importance that we know exactly what it is 
that we propose to infuse, and by what right we assume the uni- 
versality of the principles we invoke. The Greek meters, on the 
face of them, differ radically from our own. Are we to posit more 
in the way of necessary rhythmic presuppositions in the case of the 
Hebrew than is conceded in common by the ancient Greek and the 
modern English? Or, since both Greeks and English are Aryans, 
and the Hebrews Semites, should we posit less? These are ques- 
tions which must be answered if the study of our problem is not 
to continue to consist of a series of disjointed leaps into the air. 

For the facts of mathematics we are accustomed to turn with 
confidence and profit to the mathematicians, and for the facts of 
astronomy and biology to the astronomers and the biologists. 
But the musical theorists of the modern world have furnished us 
with nothing that can with any truth be described as a science of 


WILuiAM R. ARNOLD 111 


rhythm. The student of the Old Testament who would give 
adequate consideration to this subject must therefore apply him- 
self to the fundamental investigation of matters which lie wholly 
outside of his special field. What is rhythm, and what are its 
laws? 

On page 27 of Sievers’ work, he says, ‘Die specifische Form 
dieser Bewegung [that is, of the motion in time through which 
the musical work of art is made manifest | heisst allgemein Ablauf 
oder ῥυθμός, Rhythmus, sofern sie gesetzmdssig (und im Kunst- 
werk auch wolfdllig) geregelt und gegliedert ist.” But what are 
the laws which constitute it ‘‘gesetzmassig geregelt” ? And what 
makes it “‘wolfallig’” ? And does ῥυθμός mean ‘‘rhythm” or “a 
rhythm’’?—the distinction is important. Further, are the “Ab- 
schnitt, Reihe, Periode, Strophe,” tabulated on p. 29, rhythmic, 
that is, elements of rhythm? or are they merely rhythmical, that 
is, characterized by rhythm? On p. 30 (following Saran) he 
enumerates as the factors of rhythm: “(1) die Zeitaufteilung nach 
gewissen festen Proportionen; (2) die Dynamik.... ; (3) das 
Tempo; (4) die Agogik .... ; (5) die Tonarticulation 
(legato, staccato, u. 5. w.); (6) die tote Pause .... ; (7) die 
Melodie. ... ; (8) der Text .... ; (9) das Euphonische 
des Textes, z. B. Reim, Alliteration u. dgl.,” and continuing 
quotes with evident approval, ‘‘Nur das Zusammenwirken aller 
oder doch der meisten dieser Factoren erzeugt den Rhythmus.” 
Are these items properly co-ordinated? Is “Zeitaufteilung” 
effected otherwise than through some such agency as dynamic, 
melody, or text? And if not, are these last intrinsically factors of 
rhythm or only in so far as they are employed to effectuate divi- 
sions of time? On p. 31 Sievers affirms on his own responsibility 
that “Zeitaufteilung und Stdarkeabstufung’ may be considered 
“die eigentlichen constitutiven Factoren des Rhythmus.” Does he 
mean by ‘“‘constitutive factors”’ that they suffice to produce rhythm, 
or that they constitute rhythm? Is he operating with one con- 
cept when he needs two? Or is the thing produced merely a sub- 
jective state, so that by the same means one rhythm may be pro- 
duced in my mind and another in the mind of my fellow? And 
just how much “Starkeabstufung’’ must there be before one 


2 RHYTHMS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS 


experiences the sense of rhythm? Or does the degree demanded 
vary with different individuals? 

Recourse to standard works of reference on musical theory and 
terminology is equally profitless. One or two quotations which 
lend themselves to our purpose will suffice to exhibit the prevail- 
ing vagueness and confusion. 


Rhythme.—Ce mot, d’origine grecque, dans son acception générale 
signifie nombre, cadence, mesure. En musique il désigne les rapports et 
la proportion qu’ont entre elles les parties d’un tout; la liaison, la suc- 
cession des pensées qui s’enchainent dans une composition musicale 
d’une certaine étendue; et enfin la différence du mouvement qui résulte 
de la vitesse ou de la lenteur conformément auxquelles un morceau doit 
dtre exécutée.’ 

Rhythm.— This much-used and many-sided term may be defined as 
“the systematic grouping of notes with regard to duration.” It is often 
inaccurately employed as a synonym for its two subdivisions, Accent and 
Time, and in its proper signification bears the same relation to these that 
metre bears to quantity in poetry. The confusion which has arisen in 
the employment of these terms is unfortunate, though so frequent that 
it would appear to be natural, and therefore almost inevitable. Take a 
number of notes of equal length, and give an emphasis to every second, 
third, or fourth: the music will be said to be in “rhythm” of two, three, 
or four— meaning in time. Now take a number of these groups or bars 
and emphasize them in the same way as their subdivisions: the same 
term will still be employed, and rightly so. Again, instead of notes of 
equal length, let each group consist of unequal notes, but similarly 
arranged ... . the form of these groups also is spoken of as the “pre- 
vailing rhythm,” though here accent is the only correct expression. 
Thus we see that the proper distinction of these three terms is as follows: 
Accent arranges a heterogeneous mass of notes into long and short; Time 
divides them into groups of equal duration; Rhythm does for these groups 
what accent does for notes. In short, Rhythm is the Metre of Music.‘ 

Rhythmik ist die Lehre von den durch die verschiedene Dauer der 
Toéne (Lange und Kirze) entstehenden Kunstwirkungen; sie ist daher 
wohl zu unterscheiden von der Metrik, welche das verschiedene Gewicht 
der Tone zum Objekt hat..... Die beiden grundlegenden Probleme 
der Rhythmik sind die rhythmische Qualitdt, ἃ. h. die relative und 
absolute Dauer der einzelnen Téne, und die metrische Qualitdt, das 
verschiedene Gewicht der unterschiedenen Zeitteile,® 


3Soullier, Dictionnaire de musique, Paris, 1878. 

4Frederick Corder in Grove’s Dictionary of Music and Musicians, Vol. III, 1883. The 
new edition by Maitland, now being published, has not reached the word ‘* Rhythm.”’ 

5 Riemann, Musik-Lexikon, 6th ed., 1905, pp. 1092, 852. This is the nearest this authority 
comes to a definition of rhythm, 


WiL~uiAM R. ARNOLD 173 


Rhythm.—(1) The measured movement of similar tone-groups; i.e., 
the effect produced by the systematic grouping of tones with reference 
to regularity both in their accentuation and in their succession as equal 
or unequal in time value. A rhythm is, therefore, a tone-group serving 
as a pattern for succeeding groups identical with it as regards the accen- 
tuation and duration of the tones..... Time, on the other hand, is the 
division of each measure into equal fractional parts of a whole note, cor- 
responding (at least in the simple times) to the same number of regular 
beats to the measure; with which regular beats the pulsations of the 
rhythm are by no means required to coincide.—It must be added, how- 
ever, that the above definitions are not universally accepted, and that 
great confusion prevails in this department of English musical termi- 
nology, as in others; they are given simply as valid for this Dictionary.— 
(2) Rhythm, in a wider sense, is the accentuation marking and defining 
broader musical divisions in the flow and sweep of a composition by 
special emphasis at the entrance or culminating points of motives, 
themes, phrases, passages, sections, οἷο. 

It is apparent that we must be forgiven for not knowing exactly 
what to seek in the poetry of the Old Testament. 


Happily the darkness is not complete. That which modern 
theory has failed to achieve was attained in ancient times by the 
foremost musical analyst of the Hellenic world, Aristoxenus of 
Tarentum, ὁ μουσικός, κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν, an associate of Aristotle in the 
Lyceum at Athens. What Aristotle accomplished in the domain 
of logic, Aristoxenus wrought in the domain of rhythm. He 
formulated its basic principles, and created the concepts which 
are indispensable to the operations of scientific investigation. If 
his doctrine failed to be transmitted in its purity by the later 
Greek theory, it was due in part to the decline of Greek music, 
and in larger part to the supremacy of the metricists, baneful in 
any event, but doubly so when coinciding with the changing 
pronunciation of Greek (which the epigones did not realize) and 
the confusion arising from the continued employment of illus- 
trations which had ceased to illustrate. Yet even so, the later 
writings contain, wedged in with monstrosities of the age of the 
decay, sections with the unmistakable stamp of Aristoxenic origin. 


6 Baker, Dictionary of Musical Terms, 7th ed., New York, 1903. The reader may com- 
pare such current definitions as that of the Century Dictionary, or of the article on rhythm 
in the recently published New International Encyclopaedia, which inclines to the view that 
«rhythm is a kind of emotion.”’ 


174 RHYTHMS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS 


Of Aristoxenus’ systematic treatise on rhythm only fragments 
have come down to us. These are meagerly supplemented by 
passages in his Harmonics bearing upon the subject, and by 
more or less extensive citation in the works of later authors.’ 
Such as they are, however, the remains suffice to mark out with 
certainty and clearness the main lines of the science of rhythm. 

The writer who in recent times has devoted most study to the 
rhythmics of Aristoxenus and who, in consequence, is commonly 
cited as the authority upon the subject, is Rudolph Westphal. 
The opening words of one of the latter’s prefaces tell us 


Dreissig Jahre lang (nach Herodot’s Rechnung fast ein Menschenalter) 
bin ich dem Aristoxenus kaum auf Wochen untreu geworden. Meine 
schénsten Stunden habe ich im Verkehre mit ihm verlebt..... Es 
war mir verstattet, den Rhythmus Bach’s und unserer tibrigen grossen 
Meister eingehend zu studieren, und an ihm die nétige Parallele fir die 
rhythmische Doctrin des Aristoxenus zu gewinnen. Es ist mir jetzt, als 
ob mir Verséhnung zu Theil geworden: als ob wenigstens die Manen des 
alten Tarentiners nicht mehr ziirnten; als ob sie, die wie friither die seines 
Landmanns Archytas lange auf Erden keine Ruhe finden konnten, zum 
endlichen Frieden gelangt seien. 


Though many of his incidental opinions and one of his far-reaching 
conclusions have been seriously questioned by his colleagues in 
the classics, itis the general custom to accept gratefully and enthu- 
siastically with Sievers (p. 26) ‘‘Westphal’s glanzende Neubele- 
bung der Lehren des alten Tarentiners Aristoxenos.”’ 

Now the plain fact is that it would be hard to imagine a more 
pernicious combination of misplaced erudition and impenetrable 
stupidity than is exhibited in the voluminous writings which 
Westphal devoted to the elucidation of the rhythmics of Ari- 
stoxenus. Had Westphal interpreted correctly the elementary 
propositions of Aristoxenus, we should not now be asking whether 
rhythm is an array of accents or a species of emotion; and the 
ponderous dissertation of Sievers, together with much else in 
other fields, would have remained unwritten. Westphal failed to 


7To the texts published in Westphal’s Aristoxenus von Tarent Melik und Rhythmik, 
Vol. II, should be added the contents of a papyrus discovered a few years ago: Grenfell and 
Hunt, Oxyrhynchus Papyri, Part I (1898), No. IX, which are unquestionably from the pen 
of Aristoxenus, though probably belonging to a special treatise on meter rather than to the 
rhythmics 


παν R. ARNOLD 175 


grasp the fundamental distinction between ὁ ῥυθμός (rhythm) 
and ῥυθμός (a rhythm) ; between ῥυθμός and ῥυθμοποιία; between 
χρόνος ποδικός and χρόνος τῆς ῥυθμοποιίας ἴδιος. He wrongly 
identified the πούς of Aristoxenus with the ‘“Takt” or measure 
of modern music, from which it differs radically both in compass 
and in function; and the χρόνος πρῶτος with the time-unit of the 
modern measure. He attributed to Aristoxenus the doctrine of 
“irrational rhythm,” the existence of which that authority not 
only does not affirm or imply, but expressly denies. He cluttered 
the discussion with “accents,” of which Aristoxenus says not a 
word; and drew distinctions between “‘schwerer” and “leichter 
Takttheil,” which are as foreign to the thought of Aristoxenus 
as is the “Takt” itself. And time and again he emended his 
text when it stubbornly refused to lend itself to his misrepre- 
sentations. Nor is Aristoxenus at all at fault in this matter. 
Fragmentary as are the writings, they display such unsurpassed 
precision and lucidity of statement that he who runs may read— 
if he be not looking in the other direction.* 


8For an appreciation of Aristoxenus’ style, see Westphal, loc. cit., Vol. II, p. xxxiv. 
This author must at least be given the credit of having recognized the great importance of 
Aristoxenus for the study of rhythm; especially in such passages as Vol. I, p. xxxiii, Vol. IT, 
p.clvyi. On the other hand, J. H. Heinrich Schmidt, whom the gods having sentenced to 
destruction made mad, declares (Kunstformen der griechischen Poesie, Vol. II [1869], p. 17): 
‘*Philosophische Kopfe suchen den Kategorien, welche sie sich gebildet haben, die Facta 
modglichst anzupassen; weit davon entfernt, durch liebevolles Eingehen in den Gegenstand 
selbst ihn aus sich zu erkennen und anderen so zu erschliessen, suchen sie nur die Belege 
fiir ihre eigenen Ideen—und finden sie mit Leichtigkeit. Dieser Richtung gehodren die alten 
Rhythmiker an, Aristoxenus an der Spitze. Ueber allgemeine Grundsatze kommt er eben 
so wenig in seiner Rhythmik, als in seiner Harmonielehre hinweg.”’ 

Macran (The Harmonics of Aristoxenus, Oxford, 1902, p. 87) tempers his praise of Ari 
stoxenus with mention of ‘‘his petty parade of logical thoroughness, his triumphant vindi- 
cation of the obvious by chains of syllogisms.” If justification of Aristoxenus’ circumstan 
tiality in this perplexing field were needed, it might be found in Macran’s own book, p. 233 
of which has this note: ‘‘As the monotone of declamation is a license of speech, so is the 
tremolo a license of music; and the use of either, if not justified by the presence of an 
exceptional emotion, is a sin against nature.” Which shows that Macran has not yet 
learned from Aristoxenus to distinguish, first, between what the former calls the ‘‘mono- 
tone” of declamation, which is not a monotone but a movement within too limited a com 
pass in the domain of pitch, and the monotones of declamation which are really such; and, 
second, between a glide (in the domain of pitch) of which Aristoxenus has been speaking, 
and a tremolo (in the domain of time) of which he has said nothing. How invaluable formal 
syllogisms may prove in clearing the air of current misconceptions is well illustrated by the 
argument of Sidney Lanier to show that rhythm cannot possibly depend upon anything but 
duration of time (Science of English Verse, pp. 65f. note). Had Lanier subjected to the 
same merciless test his other fundamental—but totally erroneous—proposition, that 
“every series of English sounds, whether prose or verse, suggests to the ear exact co-ordi- 
nations with reference to duration”? (p. 62), his studies would have had permanent value. 

With the single exception of that regarding the χρόνος πρῶτος, all the above-mentioned 


176 RHYTHMS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS 


In the following paragraphs I will attempt to set forth as 
briefly as possible what I understand to be the the true Aristoxenic 
theory of rhythm, first asking the kind indulgence of the reader 
in the words of our authority: 


a 1 τ ΄ > 3 ΄ a N 3 ΄ N 
δεῖ δ᾽ ἕκαστον τούτων εὖ πως ἐκλαμβάνειν πειρᾶσθαι τὸν ἀκούοντα μὴ 
A Ν 3 ΄ ΄ ε / > A ” > 3 Ν 3 S δ 
παρατηροῦντα τὸν ἀποδιδόμενον λόγον ἑκάστου αὐτῶν εἴτ᾽ ἐστὶν ἀκριβὴς εἴτε 
“ AX ,ὔ , 

καὶ τυπωδέστερος, ἀλλ᾽ αὐτὸν συμπροθυμούμενον κατανοῆσαι καὶ τότε οἰόμενον 
ε “ 9. ΗΝ Ν ἣν - 7 3 , er ΄ ε 
ἱκανῶς εἰρῆσθαι πρὸς τὸ καταμαθεῖν, ὅταν ἐμβιβάσαι οἷός τε γένηται 6 


λόγος εἰς τὸ συνιέναι τὸ λεγόμενον.“ 


Rhythm in the abstract (ὁ pu@ues)—employing the word in 
the same way that we speak of “tone” or “color” —is harmonized 
time. 

As in the case of sound two distinct tones must be combined 
to produce harmony, so in the case of time two distinct periods 
of time must be combined to produce rhythm. A combination of 
two such distinct periods of time is a foot (πούς). Or, since the 
two periods of time must necessarily be contiguous, we may say 
that a foot consists of a period of time divided into two distinct 
parts. A foot, it is apparent, if this definition is correct, can 
under no circumstances consist of a single, undivided period of 
time (ἐξ ἑνὸς δὲ χρόνου ποὺς οὐκ ἂν εἴη). There is no such thing 
as “syncope”’ in rhythm.” 


errors of Westphal are reproduced in the recent elaborate treatise on the rhythmics of 
Aristoxenus by Louis Laloy, Aristoxéne de Tarente et la musique de Vantiquité, Paris, 1904. 
Indeed, Westphal’s heresies may be said to have brought forth their perfect fruit in this 
latest work; for Laloy declares that while the fugues of Bach and the sonatas of Beethoven 
have gained a better interpretation, ‘‘ce sont plutot les textes des podttes anciens qui ne 
s’expliquent pas trés bien dans le syst®me rythmique d’Aristoxéne,” and concludes, ‘Il 
semble donc qu’il lui soit arrivé de dépasser son 6poque, et de parler pour l’avenir” (pp. 
286 f.). The Oxyrhynchus papyrus, discovered since Westphal’s day, Laloy first frightfully 
misinterprets, and then condemns: ‘'Cet ouvrage n’a rien de commun avec les Eléments 
rythmiques: on y rencontre un vocabulaire différent et sans doute antéricur. C’était un 
livre sans grandes prétentions scientifiques, ot l’on constatait plutot que l’on n’expliquait ; 
il date d’une époque ot Aristoxdne n’avait pas encore congu l’idée d’une science rythmique”’ 
(p. 319; cf. pp. 41, 331 ff., and 8. v. περιέχειν in the ‘“‘ lexique’’ at the end of the volume). The 
fact is that the papyrus everywhere assumes a thorough acquaintance with the technical 
terminology expounded in the rhythmics, without which ncither head nor tail can be made 
of its fragments.—And all this notwithstanding Aristoxenus’ style is ‘“‘d’une aveuglante 
clarté”’ (p. 42). 


9 Harmonics, Macran, p. 108. 
10 The word ξυνζυγία in the Oxyrhynchus papyrus, col. iii, as in the Harmonics (Macran, 
Ῥ. 125), means a section consisting of two feet, not “the union of the two usual χρόνοι ποδικοί 


into one, a μονόχρονον.᾽᾽ as Goodell, Chapters on Greek Metric, Ὁ. 195, following Grenfell and 
Hunt, loc. cit., p. 20. 


WILLIAM R. ARNOLD 177 


Again, as in the case of sound not every combination of two 
tones constitutes a concord, so in the case of time not every com- 
bination of two times (or division of one time into two) constitutes 
arhythm. Inthe domain of pitch certain ratios exist between 
the sets of vibrations producing two concordant sounds: one vibra- 
tion to one vibration produces the concord of the prime; 1:2, the 
concord of the octave; 2:3, the concord of the fifth; 3:4, the con- 
cord of the fourth; 4:5, the (imperfect) concord of the third; ete. 
So—and the comparison is of course merely by way of illustra- 
tion—in the domain of time, to constitute a rhythm a certain 
quantitative ratio must exist between the two parts of the foot. 
Nor will mere ratio answer the purpose in the latter case any more 
than in the former. For, obviously, if we reduce the common 
divisor sufficiently, approaching the infinitesimal if necessary, 
the relation of any two periods of time is rendered rational. But 
more than this, a ratio between two time-lengths may be clearly 
perceived to exist (through computation in time-units, as for 
example 1+ 1-+1-+1:1) and yet no rhythm be present. Only 
certain specific time-ratios, which are experimentally ascertained, 
give pleasure and satisfaction to the human sense. Not merely, 
therefore, is there no such thing as “‘irrational rhythm,” but by 
no means all rationally divided times constitute rhythms.” 

A rhythm (ῥυθμός) may accordingly be defined as a period of 
time divided into two parts (no matter by what means the three 
limits are marked, and whether each part is in itself continuous 
or discrete) which sustain to each other a quantitative ratio satis- 
fying to the human sense of harmony in time. 

In a wider and somewhat looser sense, we may speak of a 
rhythm as consisting of successive repetitions of the same indi- 
vidual rhythm. Thus let the numeral 2 represent a period of 
time twice the length of another period represented by the num- 
eral 1, and assume that the ratio 2:1 is rhythmical: the foot 2:1 
will constitute a rhythm; and we may employ the term also to 
designate a succession of such identical feet, 2:1, 2:1, 2:1, 2:1, 
2:1. Except, however, in these two senses, the use of the expres- 
sion “a rhythm” is illegitimate and misleading. 


11T¢ is almost superfluous to point out in this connection that facts which require 
instruments for their discernment have no place in the study of rhythm. 


178 RHYTHMS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS 


The question then arises, What are the rhythmical ratios? 
Now, just as certain combinations of two sounds are immediately 
and independently harmonious, whereas others only become so 
through resolution; so, in the domain of time, certain foot-divisions 
are independently rhythmical, whereas others are such only when 
occurring in subordination to the independent rhythms. 

Let the diagram A represent any period of time with marked 
beginning and end. 


a sh ne seen | 


Then let the figures B, C, and D represent various divisions of 
that time into two parts. 


|i | Bech Ai clas Ae) 

Op lassie at salle atalino 

᾿γὼ ellen τείας S| 
Though the diagrams exhibit dimensions of space, and we must 
guard against the mistake of confusing symmetry in space with 
rhythm in time, the reader will have surmised that the ratios rep- 
resented in the above divisions, which are both easily apprehended 
and pleasing, are such as yield rhythms in time. They are the 
simple ratios, 1:1, 1:14 or 2:3, and 1:2. These are the only ratios 
which according to Aristoxenus are independently rhythmical. 

It must be emphasized in passing that it is an error to suppose 
that the sense apprehends the proportions of these rhythms by 
computation, through some such process as mental “beating time,” 
and that that apprehension constitutes the foot rhythmical. On 
the contrary, it employs directly the very faculty which enables 
us to beat time. For let the reader ask himself how the musician 
knows when to come in with his “three” when beating ‘one, two, 
three.” The ratios 1:2 and 2:3 are determined as directly as is 
that of 1:1. But the faculty may be employed for different pur- 
poses; as the command of the interval of the fifth may be used to 
produce a concord or to measure off successive fifths. Beating 
time, 1+1+1+1+141 ... . , differs from the rhythm 1:1, 
1:1, 1:1, in precisely the same way that a progression 14+-2+4+ 


WILLIAM R. ARNOLD 179 


8+16+32 .... differs from the rhythm 1:2, 1:2, 1:2. Beat- 
ing time is a mechanical device for insuring the correct reading 
of a musical composition that is graphically described in a net- 
work of equal time-units. The boy on the street, who proceeds to 
whistle the air with all the rhythm it contains, neither hears nor 
knows the time-beats. And the musician himself has no diffi- 
culty in subdividing the time-unit into definite proportions with- 
out marking subordinate time.” 

Now let the diagram EF represent another division of the time- 


period A. 
EDs Sabena VON | 


Here the ratio will not be immediately evident, and even when it 
has been indirectly ascertained, it does not, if the foot stand alone, 
satisfy the sense of proportion. But let this foot be assigned a 
definite period of time, absolutely determined by the proportions 
of a larger foot, as in the diagram F, 


πε"... 


and we take pleasure in the ratio 3:1. 

There are, then, certain ratios which are immediately and 
independently rhythmical (évpv@uor), and there are others which 
are only made so by “resolution.” The feet exhibiting the former 
ratios may be employed continuously (συνεχῶς) in a rhythmical 
composition; those exhibiting the latter can be employed only 
sporadically and subordinately. Thus the diagrams G, H, and I 
represent rhythms: 


CC EE ΝΝ ἩΠΗΡΗΝ Foot 1:1 

Aaa a eee Foot 2:3 

1 Oe ee es Ποοί 1:2 
whereas the diagram J does not: 

J Oe eee Foot 1:3 


12The other purpose which beating-time serves, namely, that of keeping a number of 
performers in the tempo desired, has nothing to do with proportions of time. 


180 RHYTHMS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS 


It should be added with regard to the former, that each foot in 
the several rhythms G, H, J, is entirely independent of its 
neighbors. No two feet need equal each other in time. The 
tempo may be changed with the beginning of every foot, and the 
rhythm will not be affected in the least. But the tempo cannot 
be changed in the middle of a foot without destroying or altering 
the rhythm. In fact, this is the surest method of determining 
what really constitutes the rhythmic base of a composition. 

Allowing for the different sequence of parts, and bearing in 
mind that the numerals represent proportions and not discrete 
quantities, the independently rhythmical feet are seen to be time- 
periods divided into two parts as follows: 


1:1 dactylic foot 

2:3 paeonic ὦ minore 
3:2 paeonic a majore 
1:2 iambic a minore 
2:1 iambic a majore” 


Thus far we have said nothing of the means whereby time- 
divisions are effected. Though the rhythm consists of the divided 
time, time cannot divide itself (ὁ μὲν χρόνος αὐτὸς αὑτὸν ov τέμνει). 
The division must be effected by means of some phenomenon 
occurring in time. Nevertheless, since any phenomenon whatso- 
ever that can divide time distinctly can be employed to produce 
rhythm, we do well not to introduce the phenomenal agent into 
our definition of rhythm. To mention music, or language, or 
dancing, or steps, or notes, or accents, in a definition of rhythm, 
would be as grave a fault as the introduction of the pianoforte or 
the violin or the human voice into a definition of harmony. 


13 That the rhythmic foot is in principle something wholly different from the measure of 
modern music, will be immediately evident when it is pointed out that a continuous paeonic 
rhythm is not insured by composing in “ἢ time,’”’ any more than a continuous iambic 
rhythm is insured by composing in “ἢ time.’”’ The continuous rhythms of most modern 
compositions written in 3 time are dactylic, not iambic. So ἢ time may yield a continuous 


ra Ae 
rhythm that is only dactylic, 5:5. For continuous paeonic rhythm, measures of = time 
must be regularly paired with measures of 3 time. In other words, there must invariably 


be a diaeresis after the second as well as after the fifth of every five time-units throughout 
the composition; or else invariably a diaeresis after the third and fifth of every five time- 
units throughout the composition. 


WILLIAM R. ARNOLD 181 


The division of time by means of phenomena may occur in 
one of two ways: (1) The phenomenon may have measurable dura- 
tion (ἠρεμίαν), in which case the beginning and the end of the 
phenomenon divide time at two points and determine a definite 
time-period. Or (2)—and here we are on ground not covered, 
but only faintly alluded to, in the extant writings of Aristoxenus — 
the phenomenon may be instantaneous, in which case it divides 
time at one point only and determines one boundary of a time- 
period. In the first case, it is the duration of the phenomenon 
that measures the time; in the second case, it is the interval 
between one phenomenon and the next that measures the time. 
The notes of an organ are phenomena of the first kind. The 
beats of a drum are phenomena of the second kind.“ The ordi- 
nary performance upon the pianoforte combines both species of 
phenomena. 

In actual practice there is little difference in the rhythmic 
capacity of the two classes of phenomena. For the end of one 
measurable phenomenon is treated as synchronous with the begin- 
ning of the next, while the time which actually elapses between 
one phenomenon and the next is neglected, as χρόνος ἄγνωστος 
διὰ σμικρότητα. On the other hand, each instantaneous phenom- 
enon after the first serves at once to close one interval and to 
open the next. It should be observed, however, that in producing 
rhythm by instantaneous phenomena, since each succeeding phe- 
nomenon is interpreted (like the first) as introducing a time- 
interval, the close of a final time-period must be left to the 
imagination. 

The two methods of marking time-periods may accordingly 
be represented as follows: 


By measurable phenomena, a 
By instantaneous phenomena, | | | : 


The act of dividing time by means of phenomena into propor- 
tions constituting rhythm is rhythmopoiia (ἡ ῥυθμοποιία). A 
specific division of time into such proportions is a rhythmopoua 

14 That the reverberations of a drum-beat may continue for an appreciable length of 


time is irrelevant to the point in hand: it is the instant of loudest (N. B., not an indeter- 
minate period of louder) sound that effects the rhythmic division. 


182 RHYTHMS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS 


(ῥυθμοποιία), and the result of it is a rhythmopoietic scheme 
(σχῆμα τῆς ῥυθμοποιίας. 

We have seen that there are certain divisions of time which 
every rhythmopoiia must necessarily effect. They are the divi- 
sions which yield the whole foot and its two component parts. 
The time-periods thus delimited are the χρόνοι ποδικοί of Ari- 
stoxenus. Fora given rhythm the determinate χρόνοι ποδικοί are 
essential and unchangeable. Thus let 3:2, 3:2, 38:2 represent a 
three-foot paeonic rhythm; the time represented by each numeral 
is a chronos podikos and must be kept distinct. 

On the other hand, there is no reason why, within the strictly 
observed boundaries of the individual chronos podikos, supple- 
mentary divisions should not be made. Thus the rhythmopoiia 
will establish the proportions of the paeonic foot quite as well 
by the four quantities 1+1-+1:2 as by the two quantities 3:2. 
But—and this is a point of the utmost importance—such subdi- 
vision of a chronos podikos has not the least effect upon the 
rhythm of the foot to which it belongs. That particular rhythm 
knows only the time-value of the chronos podikos represented by 
the numeral 3. The three commensurate parts into which the 
rhythmopoiia has divided it are not functions of the foot, but 
time-divisions peculiar to the rhythmopotia (χρόνοι Ths ῥυθμοποιίας 
ἴδιοι). The rhythmopoiia may divide the chronos podikos into 
(or may construct it of) any number of separate time-lengths, if 
only these are all palpably commensurate and together yield one 
of the time-values demanded by the rhythm. 

It is apparent, therefore, that we may have varying rhythmo- 
poiiai for the same rhythm. Thus the rhythm 3:2 may be 
effected by division of time through the rhythmopoiia in any 
one of the following ways: 3:2, -3:1+1, 1+1+1:2, 2+1:2, 
14+2:2, 1+141:141, 24+1:141, 142:1+1. All these 
are but different schemes (σχήματα) of the same foot, yielding 
the same rhythm. Nor need the rhythmopoiia stop here. Subject 
only to the limitations of the human perception, it may continue 
to subdivide the chronoi podikoi (or, what amounts to the same 
thing, to expand the foot) indefinitely; for example, 3-+4+4+ 
B4242:.142428 =21141424941:34+142 For, 


WILLIAM R. ARNOLD 183 


strictly speaking, a foot has absolute magnitude as little as has 
a rhythm; though for practical purposes we distinguish between 
feet of similar rhythm but varying magnitudes. 

The smallest perceptibly definite quantity of time that can be 
employed in the rhythmopoiia of any foot (whether as an inde- 
pendent chronos podikos or as the fraction of one) is called by 
Aristoxenus the χρόνος πρῶτος. Of course such a quantity will 
be palpably rational of necessity only as regards the πούς ἐν @ 
τέτακται. 

A chronos podikos subdivided into χρόνοι τῆς ῥυθμοποιίας ἴδιοι 
is χρόνος σύνθετος, a composite or discrete time; one that is not 
so divided is χρόνος ἀσύνθετος, a simple or continuous time. The 
χρόνος σύνθετος is to be sharply distinguished from the πούς 
σύνθετος, which will presently be defined. 

This brings us to the subject of complex rhythm. A xpovos 
σύνθετος or composite time may be constituted in either one of 
two ways. It may be composed of simple times (χρόνοι) : or it 
may be composed of the chronoi podikoi of one or more subordi- 
nate feet. Thus let 5:5 represent a dactylic foot. The rhythmo- 
poiia might give us 1-+1+1-+1-+1:5. Here the second chronos 
podikos is continuous (ἀσύνθετος, while the first is composed of 
simple, equal but rhythmless, times. But the rhythmopoiia might 
also render the foot (2:3):5. Here the first (dactylic) chronos 
podikos consists of a subordinate paeonic foot, and we have a 
rhythm within a rhythm. The process might be continued, as 
in (2:[2:1]):5; where FR (the superior rhythm) is 1:1, dactylic; 
γι (the primary subordinate rhythm) is 2:3, paeonic; and 1, (the 
secondary subordinate rhythm) is 2:1, iambic.” 

When each chronos podikos of a foot is resolved into one or 
more subordinate rhythms, the foot is compound (πούς σύνθετοςῚ. 
A point to be emphasized is, that just as one chronos podikos of 
a foot may be composite while the other is not, so one chronos 

15 Whether a composite time consists of simple equal times or of subordinate chronoi 
podikoi, is sometimes difficult to determine. Whereas in the case of the continuous inde- 
pendent rhythm 2:1, 2:1, 2:1, for example, the scheme 1—1-—1 will perforce be interpreted 
1+1:1; when the question is one of subordinate (and so not necessarily continuous) 
rhythm, the quantity will be interpreted 1+1-+1 in the absence of several parallel sections 


furnishing the cue for the rhythm 2:1 or 1:2. A composite time 1- 1 is of course not to be 
distinguished from 1:1. 


184 RHYTHMS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS 


podikos or fraction thereof may be resolved into one species of 
rhythm, and another into another species. In other words, it is 
by no means necessary that the subordinate rhythms of one and 
the same rhythmic stratum should be identical; in fact, unless 
they belong to the independent class (see above, p. 178) they 
must needs vary. So the rhythmopoiia of a dactylic foot might 
compound it thus, (3:1):(2:1+1). Here # is 1:1, and r is 
first 3:1 and then 1:1. This fact alone indicates that the only 
safe method in the analysis of rhythm is to proceed from the 
top down, and not, as is the custom in Greek metrics, from the 
bottom up. 

We may go farther and affirm that the various subordinate 
rhythms need not even exhibit a common divisor. <A dactylic 
foot a:a, for example, may have its first chronos podikos subdi- 
vided so as to form a dactylic rhythm, and its second so as to 
form an iambic rhythm, (4a:4a):(4a:%a). The reader may 
convince himself by the simplest experiment that he has no diffi- 
culty in dividing automatically, and without beating “1 Takt,” 
one of two equal time-units into dactylic and the other into iambic 
proportions. This perfectly rational compound foot is common in 
the trimeter of Greek drama, where no end of trouble has arisen 
from the erroneous assumption of an iambic base, whereas the 
real rhythmic base is dactylic, though with prevailingly iambic 
subordinate rhythm.” 

We have described the subdivisions of the chronos podikos, 
which Aristoxenus affirms are not functions of the foot but time- 
divisions peculiar to the rhythmopoiia. We omitted to say, how- 
ever, that those subdivisions are not the only χρόνοι τῆς ῥυθμοποιίας 
ἴδιοι. Corresponding to those time-divisions which are fractions 
of the rhythmic quantum (the chronos podikos), there are other 
time-divisions which are multiples of the rhythmic quantum (the 


16The hopeless difficulty into which one falls regarding the simplest matters when 
analyzing rhythm wrong end foremost, is well illustrated by a note of Goodell’s, loc. cit., 
p. 146, ‘‘ How we are to explain the apparent discrepancy between this statement [that 
the dactyl might not exceed in magnitude sixteen χρόνοι πρῶτοι] and the unquestionable 
occurrence of dactylic pentapodies I do not yet know,’’ quoting the familiar refrain of 
the Agamemnon, 
αἴλινον αἴλινον εἰπέ, τὸ δ᾽ εὖ νικάτω, 
The explanation is most simple. The quantity is not a dactyl, but a compound paeon, 
which might have the magnitude of twenty-five χρόνοι πρῶτοι, 


WituiaAmM R. ARNOLD 185 


foot). A χρόνος τῆς ῥυθμοποιίας ἴδιος of the former class is said 
to depart from the rhythmic quantum ἐπὶ τὸ μικρόν. One of 
the latter class is said to depart from it ἐπὶ τὸ μέγα. We have 
Aristoxenic terms for two such χρόνοι τῆς ῥυθμοποιίας ἴδιοι παραλ- 
λάσσοντες TA τῶν χρόνων ποδικῶν μεγέθη ἐπὶ τὸ μέγα. A section 
οὗ rhythmopoiia which embraces two feet of the same rhythm is 
a ξυνζυγία. One that embraces three (or more) feet of the same 
rhythm is a περίοδος. So in the Oxyrhynchus papyrus, col. iii, 
the two dactylic feet—the feet are the times, not the text— 


gen sa ae a 1.3 
Bare Bate κειθεν ac 


26 11 ae | 2 1 
constitute a ξυνζυγίαᾳ. The quantity Bate Bate κειθεν would be 


a περίοδος if it were the actual rhythmopoietic section—which it 
is not, for that would leave a rhythmless monochronon hanging 
loose; wherefore Aristoxenus speaks of it as περιοδῶδές τι." 

The end of a syzygy or period may be evidenced by some 
peculiarity in the rhythmopoietic scheme of the closing foot; for 
example: 

Two syzygies: (2:1):(2:1), (2:1):3, (2:1):(2:1), 1 +1:1):3 

Two periods: 2:1+ 1, 2:14 1, 2:2, 2:1+1, 2:1+1, 2:14 1, 2:2 


or it may be indicated by the mere suspension or cessation of the 
rhythmopoiia:* 


Pwo syzygies: 1+ 1:2, 11:2... .141:2 7+41:2.°... 
worpesiods: 2. ΠῚ ΣΕ πῶ er Soko. Be Dee δες 


We must be careful not to mistake such a quantity as (2:1+1)+ 
(2:1+1):4” for a period; for its final time is no kind of a foot, 
but a mere χρόνος ποδικὸς ἀσύνθετος. The whole quantity is an 
iambic foot, with one of its chronoi podikoi resolved into subor- 
dinate, dactylic rhythms. 


17 Grenfell and Hunt (loc. cit., p. 18), assisted by Blass, quantify 


3, Ure yf Lee ans Gee} 
Bate Bate κειθεν ar 


which gives one monochronon and three iambi, although Aristoxenus expressly adduces 
this example to prove τὸ povoxpovoy οἰκειότερον Tov τροχαϊκοῦ | 

18 Suspension of rhythmopoiia should not be confused with ‘“‘enrhythmic pause,’’ which 
is suspension of a particular rhythmizomenon, while the rhythmopoiia continues without 
intermission. 


19 Rendered, for example, by half a so-called “‘ elegiac pentameter.” 


180 RHYTHMS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS 


The rhythmical arts of ancient Greece were three: melody, 
poetry, and the dance. According to Aristoxenus, the first 
employed, as the phenomena of rhythmopoiia, tones (φθόγγοι) 
of measurable duration; the second employed syllables (ξυλλα- 
Bat) of measurable duration; and the third employed poses 
(σχήματα " of measurable duration. Tones, syllables, or poses, 
arranged and timed so as to yield rhythm, were said to be rhythm- 
ized (ῥυθμίζεσθαι), and the act of so arranging and timing them 
was called rhythmization (τὸ ῥυθμίζειν). A series of tones, sylla- 
bles, or poses, employed to effect rhythm, was spoken of collectively 
as the rhythmizomenon (τὸ ῥυθμιζόμενον). Language considered 
merely as matter for rhythmization Aristoxenus called lexis (ἡ 
λέξις) ; and any specific quantity of it, a lexis (λέξις. 

Rhythmization as a concept must be clearly distinguished 
from rhythmopotia, however completely the two processes may 
appear to coincide in a certain concrete action. Rhythmization 
has regard to the molding of a given material or the disposition 
of its parts so as to meet the requirements of a certain form. 
Rhythmization must always reckon with the character of the 
material, and must stop short of any procedure that tends to 
obscure or destroy that character. Rhythmopoiia, on the other 
hand, has regard solely to the determination and realization of 
the form, by whatever means. 

From the elements of the dance were derived the terms em- 
ployed by Aristoxenus to designate each of the two parts of the 
rhythmic foot, as well as the term “foot” itself, and doubtless 
also the terms ‘‘syzygy” and “ period.” 

In each pose (σχῆμα) of the dance, the foot—which foot, is 
immaterial—was either held on the ground or held suspended 
in the air. The position of the foot during the duration of 
the pose was called the σημεῖον, that is, the mark or index of 
the pose. The semeion which consisted of the wplifted foot was 
the ἄρσις; that which consisted of the resting or treading foot 
was the βάσις. Neither in the terminology of the dance, nor in 
the derived terminology of rhythmical science in general, did the 


20Tt need not be pointed out that this is an altogether different application of the 
word σχῆμα from that we noticed above in the phrase σχῆμα τῆς ῥυθμοποιίας, 


WiuuiaAM R. ARNOLD 187 


terms “arsis” and ‘“‘basis” refer to the act of lifting or lowering 
the foot. The times consumed in such transition from one 
position of the foot to the other were disregarded, as mere bounds 
of the rhythmic time-lengths (ὥσπερ ὅροι τινὲς ὄντες τῶν ὑπὸ τῶν 
ἠρεμιῶν κατεχομένων χρόνων. 

Because the foot was employed to mark time in connection with 
the other rhythmical arts, the above-mentioned terms were adopted 
in the analysis of all rhythms: “foot”? to designate the entire 
rhythmic unit, ‘‘semeion” to designate each separate chronos 
podikos, and ‘“‘arsis” and “basis” to designate the antithetical 
semeia. Other names for these last occur in the writings of 
Aristoxenus: ἡ ἄρσις = τὸ dvw = ὁ ἄνω χρόνος = the time during 
which the foot is up; ἡ βάσις = τὸ κάτω = ὁ κάτω χρόνος --- the 
time during which the foot is down. A glance at the lexicon 
suffices to show that there is no reason for rendering these expres- 
sions the wpward time and the downward time; compare especially 
such terms as of ἄνω, the living, οἱ κάτω, the dead, ὁ ἄνω τόπος, 
the high region, οἱ ἄνω θεοί, the gods above. The Greeks of the 
days of Aristoxenus did not beat time; they held time. 

In marking the times of a rhythm it was of course most natural 
that when, as in the iambic and paeonic rhythms, one chronos 
podikos was longer than the other, the longer of the two times 
should be marked by basis (the grounded foot), and the shorter 
by arsis (the uplifted foot). Equally natural was it that when, 
in dactylic rhythms, the rhythmopoiia almost regularly alternated 
discrete with continuous times, the continuous times should be 
marked by basis, and the discrete times by arsis. If there was a 
thing in the world with which basis (the θέσις of later writers) 
had no connection whatever in the days of Aristoxenus, it was 
stress. The unspeakable beauties of graduated thumping the 
Greeks still left to be enjoyed by barbarians. 

To avoid confusion in so summary a statement, I have thus far 
refrained from alluding to the auxiliary semeia and resultant 
additional chronoi podikoi of the larger iambic and paeonic (but 
never of the dactylic) feet of Greek rhythmics. Such an iambic 
foot had its longer chronos podikos regularly subdivided into two 
equal parts (foot = 1:1 - 1 or 1+ 1:1), making three chronoi 


188 RHYTHMS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS 


podikoi and three semeia to the foot; so that successive feet were 
marked alternately by arsis, basis, arsis and basis, arsis, basis. 
No better evidence could be desired of the utter absence of the 
dynamic element in the antithesis of basis and arsis. Similarly 
the larger paeons had each of their chronoi podikoi regularly sub- 
divided into two parts, those of the shorter chronos podikos being 
equal, and those of the longer sustaining to each other the relation 
of two to one, making in all four chronoi podikoi and four semeia 
to the foot; for example in the foot 1 + 1:2 +1, basis, arsis, long 
basis, arsis.”’ These auxiliary semeia and subdivisions of the 
primary chronoi podikoi were mere conveniences of measurement, 
in order that τὸ τοῦ ὅλου ποδὸς μέγεθος εὐσυνοπτότερον γίνηται. 
They were aids to the perception of relative duration, and do not 
in the least alter the fact that the rhythm of the foot was con- 
ceived to depend upon the quantitative ratio between its two prin- 
cipal sections and upon that alone. In other words, for purposes 
of appraisement only, the continuity of time in certain magnitudes 
was required to be regularly broken at other stated points besides 
the rhythmic diaeresis. 


It remains to point out the source of the “irrational rhythm” 
or ‘‘Rhythmus des gesagten Verses” which Westphal fathered 
upon Aristoxenus.” To do this we must take leave of the domain 
of time and rhythm in which we have been occupied, and journey 
into the Harmonics of Aristoxenus, where the subject under con- 
sideration is pitch and tone. 


Wenn die Griechen ihre Verse recitirten [says Westphal], so brachten 
sie von der Versification nur die rhythmischen Accente zu Gehor; aber 
was die Zeitdauer der einzelnen Sylben anbetraf, so verweilte auf keiner 
derselben die Stimme des Vortragenden lange genug, dass der Hérende 
sich des Verhialtnisses zwischen der verschiedenen Zeitdauer der Sylben 


21 Among the less muddled statements of Aristides Quintilianus is one indicating that a 
larger paeon was called ἐπιβατός, ἐπειδὴ τετράσι χρώμενος μέρεσιν ἐκ δυοῖν ἄρσεων καὶ δυοῖν διαφο- 
ροῖν θέσεων γίνεται ; and another to the effect that a short paeon διάγυιος μὲν οὖν εἴρηται οἷον 
δίγυιος δύο γὰρ χρῆται σημείοις (Meibom, p. 39). Regarding the latter Goodell complains (loc. 
cit., p. 148) that ‘‘as it stands the last clause fits no interpretation of σημεῖα that I am ac- 
quainted with.” It fits perfectly the only correct interpretation of the Aristoxenic σημεῖον, 
which, however, it must be added, Aristides himself is not always clear about. 


22 Aristoxenos von Tarent, I, pp. 223 ff.; If, pp. exlvi ff., excii f.; Griechische Rhythmik 


(Rossbach-Westphal, Theorie der musischen Ktinste der Hellenen, 1), pp. 42 ff.; Westphal- 
Gleditsch, Allgemeine Theorie der griechischen Metrik, p. 7. 


WILLIAM R. ARNOLD 189 


bewusst werden konnte; die Sprechstimme macht, wie Aristoxenos sagt, 
den Eindruck des Continuirlichen im Gegensatze zur Singstimme, welche 
auf den einzelnen Sylben eine messbare Zeit hindurch verweilt. 


The foundation of this opinion of Westphal’s, which continues 
to be quite generally accepted among classical scholars at the 
present time, is the following passage in the Harmonics: 


First of all, then, we must attempt to ascertain the varieties of motion 
as to place (αὐτῆς τῆς κατὰ τόπον κινήσεως). Hvery voice™ that is capable 
of such motion has two distinct kinds of movement, the continuous 
(συνεχής) Movement and the movement by intervals (διαστηματική). In 
the continuous movement the voice seems to the senses to traverse a 
certain range of pitch as if tarrying nowhere—not even, so far as the 
ear can discern, at the extremities of the range—but changing position 
continuously up to the very moment of silence. In the other movement, 
which we call movement by intervals, it seems to behave in the opposite 
manner: for, striding through a given range, it arrests itself on one pitch- 
level, then again on another; and doing this continuously—I am here, 
of course, using “continuously” in its ordinary sense, of time—that is, 
stepping over the intervals bounded by the pitch-levels, but dwelling on 
the pitch-levels themselves and sounding these alone, it is said to make 
melody and to be moving by intervals. 

Each of these must be taken as it impresses the ear. For whether 
it is possible or impossible for a voice to move and then to arrest itself 
upon a definite pitch-level, is an entirely independent inquiry, and one 
that does not concern the present discipline.” For whatever may be the 
correct conclusion on those points,” it cannot affect in any way the 
differentiation of the melic movement of the voice from its other move- 
ments. Speaking simply, whenever the voice changes its altitude in such 
fashion as to seem to the ear to rest nowhere, we call its movement con- 
tinuous; and whenever, after seeming to rest at a certain level, it seems 
to traverse a given interval, and then again seems to rest at another level, 
and continues to the end to seem to do the one thing and the other alter- 
nately, we call its movement movement by intervals. 


23 That is, change of altitude or movement in the domain of pitch. 


24To avoid raising a question that is immaterial to the present discussion, I follow 
Westphal and Macran in rendering ἡ φωνή the voice, though I suspect that throughout the 
greater part of this section it has the more general meaning of sownd. 


25 Having regard to such objections as that sound is but the product of motion, or that 
continued motion is necessary to maintain even stative pitch. These are questions, he 
rejoins, for the physicist, not for the musician. Westphal affirms that Aristoxenus is rele- 
gating the questions to the discipline of rhythmics! 


26 The troublesome clause τὸ δὲ κινῆσαι τούτων ἑκάτερον is not improved by the suggested 
emendations of Meibom, Marquard, Westphal, or Macran. Thesimplest and most satisfactory 
solution is to construe it as subject of the following verb: ὁποτέρως yap ἔχει τὸ κινῆσαι τούτων 
ἑκάτερον 


190 RHYTHMS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS 


Now, the continuous movement we affirm to be that of speech; for 
when we converse with each other the voice moves in the domain of 
pitch in such a manner as to seem never to rest at any point. With the 
other movement, which we call movement by intervals, the opposite is 
the natural condition of things; for firstly the voice there seems to rest, 
and then all men affirm of one who appears to be making such use of 
his voice that he no longer speaks but sings. Wherefore in conversation 
we shun stative pitch, except when on rare occasions we are forced into 
that kind of movement by some strong emotion; whereas in singing we 
do the opposite, shunning the continuous movement and aiming to keep 
the voice as stationary as possible. For just in proportion as each sound 
is unmixed and stative and identical throughout, will the singing appear 
to the senses to be perfect. That there are, then, two distinct movements 
of the voice in the domain of pitch, and that of these the continuous 
movement is that of speech and the movement by intervals that of song, 
is plain enough from what has been said.” 


The doctrine here set forth is perfectly clear. Put into 
succinct modern language it is this: The course of the speaking 
voice in the domain of pitch cannot at any stage be reproduced 
upon the pianoforte, but requires the violin, with the finger of 
the left hand gliding along the string as continuously as does the 
bow athwart it. That of song, on the other hand, is such that 
the finger on the reproducing violin-string moves swiftly from 
one point to another and tarries, now here, now there, to emit 
tones that can be reproduced upon a pianoforte. Occasionally, 
when swayed by exceptional emotion, a man does introduce into 
his speech tones that might be reproduced upon a pianoforte, but 
only sporadically. If, instead of employing such tones sporadi- 
cally, he does so continuously, he ceases even to declaim and 
begins to sing. 

Whether or not the observations made by Aristoxenus, with no 
instrument but his well-trained ear, are corroborated by modern 
science, is a matter that does not concern us. It is sufficient that 
we understand what he did his best to say. 

And now, what has all this to do with rhythm, rational or 
irrational? What has the distinction between gliding and stative 
pitch to do with the duration of syllables, whether “spoken” or 


27 The above is my own rendering of the Greek text, Macran, pp. 101 ff.; Westphal, II, 
pp. 10f.; Meibom, pp. 8 ff. 


WiLuiAmM R. ARNOLD 191 


“sung” ? Simply nothing at all.” All that this section tells us 
is that the acute accent of Greek speech was not a high note 
but an wpward note, and the grave accent not a low note but a 
downward note, and that every syllable was marked by either the 
one or the other or by a combination of both.” 

But if it must be admitted that the alleged direct evidence of 
the Harmonics for an Aristoxenic “irrational rhythm” is non- 
existent, does not Aristoxenus in his treatise on rhythm make 
explicit mention of an irrational foot? To be sure he does, but 
in a connection which prevented even Westphal from claiming it 
as evidence for his ‘““‘Rhythmus des gesagten Verses.” A foot as 
such is merely a period of time divided into two parts. It is the 
first requisite toward the realization of rhythm, but by no means 
the only one. For the production of rhythm there is required, 
besides a period of time divided into two parts, (1) a palpable 
ratio between these two parts, and (2) that the ratio satisfy the 
sense of rhythm, or harmony in time. Accordingly, before pro- 
ceeding to enumerate the rhythmical ratios, he attempts to make 
as plain as possible the condition of rationality within the mean- 
ing of the discipline of rhythmics. To meet this condition it is 
not sufficient that there be a theoretical common divisor; which, 
as observed above, would render any conceivable foot rational. 
The common divisor must be a quantity actually capable of 
employment in the rhythmopoiia of the foot; it must be at least 
the χρόνος πρῶτος, or smallest perceptibly commensurate quantity. 
To make his point clear to his contemporaries, immersed as they 


28It is of course possible to explain how Westphal came by his curious blunder. But 
the best thing to do with an absurdity is to bury it. One error that must be corrected, 
however, since it is provocative of serious mischief and persists even among those few who 
have questioned Westphal’s teaching, is the assumption of a scale of pitch for the speaking 
voice. Inthe case of Weil, Westphal’s first challenger, the error proved fatal. Goodell, 
who interprets the theory of Aristoxenus correctly enough a little farther on, begins by 
saying that in this section ‘‘it is the movement of the voice up and down the scale that is 
under examination..... There are two kinds of tune, two kinds of movement up and down 
the scale” (loc. cit., Ὁ. 121). On the contrary, according to Aristoxenns, speech recognizes 
no scale of pitch, and has none, but only (so to speak) an inclined plane; and song differs 
from speech primarily in that it makes a scale. 

29Very incidentally, we are allowed an inference as to the relative duration of the 
syllables of Greek speech which is in diametrical opposition to the doctrine of Westphal. 
Chinese modulations of tone are not easily detected in any but our very longest Germanic 
syllables, whereas Aristoxenus gives the impression of propounding a truth neither remote 
nor difficult of verification by the most unobserving of his hearers. There cannot be the 
slightest doubt that the average length of a Greek syllable in ancient times was consid- 
erably greater than that of modern Greek or any other stress-accentuating language. 


192 RHYTHMS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS 


were in the normal rationalities of quantifying speech as well as 
of song and dancing, he essays to describe for their benefit an 
irrational foot in positive terms. And to do this he is forced 
to the following shift: Take, he says, a foot in which the basis 
(thesis) is equal to the arsis, and each has the value of two 
chronoi protoi; then take another foot in which the basis is like- 
wise equivalent to two chronoi protoi, but the arsis is half that 
quantity: an irrational foot will be one in which, while the basis 
remains the same as in those two feet, the arsis is the mean 
between the arsis of the one and the arsis of the other—that is, 
equals one chronos protos and a half,” a quantity which by defi- 
nition the sense is incapable of appraising so as to determine 
whether it is or is not one and a half times the chronos protos. 
It was the easiest thing in the world to adduce for a Greek audi- 
ence a foot that, though rational, was not rhythmical; but a foot 
that was not rational could only be pointedly described by some 
such indirection. That such a foot had no positive function, it 
was unnecessary to affirm; and that it could have no possible 
place in rhythm, except as an exhibition of “bad time,’’ went 
without saying.” Empirically, then, there is such a thing as a 
bad or unrhythmical foot. But in the rhythm of Aristoxenus 
there were neither irrational rhythms nor irrational feet. Witness 
the following emphatic declaration, which may well be allowed to 
ring in our ears as we pass from the Hellenic to the Hebraic field: 

οἶμαι μὲν οὖν φανερὸν εἶναί σοι ὅτι οὐδὲν προσχρώμεθα τῷ ἀπείρῳ πρὸς 
τὴν (ῥυθμικὴν) ἐπιστήμην, εἰ δὲ μὴ νῦν ἔσται φανερώτατον. οὔτε γὰρ 
πόδας συντίθεμεν ἐκ χρόνων ἀπείρων, ἀλλ᾽ ἐξ ὡρισμένων καὶ πεπερασμένων 
μεγέθει τε καὶ ἀριθμῷ καὶ τῃ πρὸς ἀλλήλους ξυμμετρίᾳ τε καὶ τάξει, οὔτε 
ῥυθμὸν οὐδένα τοιοῦτον ὁρῶμεν: δῆλον δέ εἴπερ μηδὲ πόδα, οὐδὲ 
ῥυθμόν, ἐπειδὴ πάντες οἱ ῥυθμοὶ ἐκ ποδῶν τινων σύγκεινται ἢ 


30 Goodell’s objection (loc. cit., pp. 111f.) that this interpretation makes the foot rational 
in the ratio of 4:3, will not hold; for it makes it not palpably, but only theoretically rational, 
which is exactly the irrationality that Aristoxenus is laboring to illustrate—the only kind 
of irrationality there is. Goodell has tripped over Westphal’s erroneous identification of 
the χρόνος πρῶτος with the time-unit of the modern measure. Of course, the use which 
Westphal himself makes of these 4:3 halves of a chronos protos is utterly illegitimate. 

31 The sentence καλεῖται δ᾽ οὗτος χορεῖος ἄλογος, added to Aristoxenus’ example of the 
irrational foot, is an unmistakable gloss. For one thing, it has no antecedent; and for 
another, Aristoxenus is nowhere near the naming of magnitudes. 

82Quoted by Porphyry (233-c. 304 A. D.) from a treatise of Aristoxenus περὶ τοῦ πρώτου 
χρόνον, in the former’s commentary on the ᾿Αρμονικά of the astronomer Ptolemy. The 
quotation is printed in Westphal’s Aristoxenos, II, pp. 94 f. 


WILLIAM R. ARNOLD 193 


Now I think you see clearly that we make no use whatever of the 
indeterminate in our science of rhythm; and if that be not already clear, 
it will presently be perfectly so. For neither do we construct feet of 
indeterminate periods of time—but, on the contrary, of such as are 
definite and determinate, in duration and number, in reciprocal com- 
mensurateness and order—nor do we recognize any rhythm that is so 
constituted ; demonstrably not: for, if we recognize no such foot, we can 
recognize no such rhythm, since all rhythms are made up of feet. 


The words I have italicized pronounce final sentence upon 
Westphal’s ‘‘Rhythmus des gesagten Verses” and Sievers’ “‘irra- 
tional rhythm.’’* 


The rhythm that we are to seek in the poetry of the Old 
Testament is therefore: A period of time divided into two pal- 
pably commensurate parts (of which each in itself may be either 
continuous or rationally discrete) sustaining to each other one 
of three ratios, 1:1, 2:3, or 1:2. Anda Hebrew meter will be 
a definite form of Hebrew lexis capable of being timed to yield 
such a rhythm without doing violence to the character of the 
language. 

The Hebrew is not a quantifying language. Its syllables are 
not palpably commensurate, nor can they be made so without 
distorting them out of their natural character and destroying 
their identity. Whether their relative duration vary from 1:1 to 
1:5 (as Lanier affirmed of English syllables in his effort to prove 
them rational), or from 1:1 to 1:20,000 (as Westphal affirmed 
of German syllables in laboring to prove them irrational), it is 
not, and so long as the syllables preserve their linguistic identity 
cannot be, measured by the unaided senses. The same holds 
true of all the other elements of accentuating speech that have 
appreciable duration, whether parts of the syllable or compounds 
of it. The Hebrew language has, accordingly, no elements which 
may legitimately be employed as the measurable phenomena of 
rhythmopoiia. If the rhythm of Hebrew poetry depends upon 
the relative duration of its syllables, there is no rhythm in Hebrew 
poetry. 


33 They are omitted in Westphal’s disingenuous rendering of the passage, Aristoxenos, I, 
p. 485. 


194 RHYTHMS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS 


But though the Hebrew cannot effect the definite divisions 
of time which are essential to rhythm by means of measurable 
phenomena, it can nevertheless effect them by means of 
instantaneous phenomena. Such phenomena are the accents, or 
points of distinct stress to and from which the language is con- 
stantly moving. And whereas the Hebrew will not endure the 
rationalization of its syllables, it will, like other accentuating lan- 
guages, not only endure but actually welcome such acceleration 
and retardation of utterance—which acceleration and retardation 
is possible precisely because the syllables have no prescribed pro- 
portionate quantity—as is required to make those points of stress 
fall at commensurate intervals of time. Moreover, it is not the 
degree of its intensity, but the moment of its incidence, in the 
consciousness of speaker and hearer, that gives to stress its 
rhythmic function. And whether it fall at the beginning, at 
the middle, or at the end of a syllable, the stress itself is always 
a momentary thing. Consequently, the only time-lengths that 
can contribute to the rhythm of Hebrew poetry are the intervals 
between accents. 

Now, so far as concerns the rhythm, it is not of the least 
consequence how the termini of syllables are distributed with 
regard to the accents. Ifit were physically possible for the voice 
to utter one syllable with five accents, the rhythmopoiia could 
employ the five definite intervals of time so determined for pur- 
poses of rhythm; if it were possible for the voice to utter twenty 
syllables with only two accents, the rhythmopoiia would be con- 
tent to make use of the two intervals so determined. As a matter 
of fact, it is not possible to bestow more than one accent upon a 
syllable without bringing into existence a second syllable,” nor to 
pronounce more than a limited number of syllables under cover — 
of a single accent. But these are facts of linguistics and pho- 
netics, and have nothing to do with rhythm. The syllables of 
accentuating poetry, being neither χρόνοι ποδικοί nor χρόνοι τῆς 
ῥυθμοποιίας ἴδιοι, have no rhythmic function whatsoever. 

I say rhythmic function. And here a word of caution must 


841 refer, of course, to the syllable of actuality, not of spelling. For the scientific 
definition of a syllable, see Jespersen, Lehrbuch der Phonetik, Leipzig and Berlin, 1904 
pp. 191 ff. 


WILLIAM R. ARNOLD 195 


be inserted, which perhaps should have been uttered earlier, in 
connection with the exposition of the Aristoxenic rhythmics. 
When we said that the feet 3:2 and 1+1-+1:2 differ only in 
rhythmopoietic scheme and not at all in rhythm, it was not 
implied that the difference of rhythmopoietic scheme makes no 
impression upon the senses and does not influence the character 
of the rhythmical composition. Continuity and discreteness, as 
qualities, produce very different aesthetic effects upon the human 
spirit. The one gives the impression of stateliness, solemnity, 
restfulness, or melancholy; the other that of sprightliness, activity, 
perturbation, or hilarity. This effect of relative continuity or 
discreteness Aristoxenus calls the ethos (τὸ ἦθος) of a movement, 
and intimates quite plainly that it is dependent upon rhythmo- 
poietic scheme. We may call it ‘color.’ Now, the antithetical 
chromatic effects of continuity and discreteness are so far from 
being moments of rhythm, that it is only because the rhythm is 
something other than they, that the impression of them exists at 
all. What gives different color to 1+1-+1 and 8 is the very 
fact that the two quantities are rhythmically identical, and that 
within one and the same period (chronos podikos), as rhythmically 
determined, one rhythmopoiia makes two breaks in the continuity 
of time and the other makes none. 

In this connection, however, we have to note an important 
difference in the respective capacities and methods of rhythmo- 
poiia by means of quantifying lexis and rhythmopoiia by means 
of accentuating lexis. For obvious reasons, the quantities of the 
latter rhythmopoiia are normally discrete, the great mass of them 
exhibiting the scheme 1+1-+1.... It does, indeed, admit 
of a limited variation of scheme; so in the lines 


O Sélitude, romantic maid, Whéther by nédding téwers you tréad 
the rhythmopoietic scheme is 2:1++-1, 1+-1:1-+1; and in the lines 
Mabel, little Mabel, With face against the pane 
the scheme is 1+ 1:2, 1+1:2. But such limited variation of 
rhythmopoietic scheme cannot give much color to the compo- 


sition, especially in the face of the more or less obtrusive syllabi- 
fication of the lexis. For though entirely irrational, the syllables 


190 RHYTHMS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS 


of accentuating speech do nevertheless operate to color the rational 
time-lengths of the rhythmical composition. The manner of this 
will be made plain by means of a diagram. 


a b 
| τὲ 


In the diagram K the vertical lines represent the moments of 
stress, inclosing two palpably equal intervals of time, a and b. 
The horizontal lines represent six irrational syllables, tdtdtatatatd, 
which carry the three accents. It is apparent that the effect of 
continuity or discreteness is produced by the relative frequency 
of transition from one syllable to another, in spite of the fact that 
the syllables themselves are irrational, when the time-interval 
within which the transitions take place is palpably rational and 
so affords a definite basis for estimating the frequency of such 
transitions. We see, then, that whereas the syllables of accentu- 
ating speech may not be employed as rhythmopoietic time-lengths, 
under cover of rhythmopoiia they may exercise the same function 
as the syllables of quantifying speech so far as regards the purely 
chromatic effects of continuity and discreteness of time. 

But when all this has been said, it cannot be emphasized too 
strongly that the only rhythmic factors in accentuating verse 
are the rationally timed stress-accents. Both the rhythm and 
the rhythmopoiia of the following four couplets are accordingly 
identical throughout; the variation is merely in the chromatic 
rarefaction and condensation of the lexis. 


RuytuHmopora: 1+1:1+1, 14+1:1+1 


The lévely lady Christa- bél, Whém her fAther léves so wéll, 
What mdikes her in the wéod so late, A fdrlong fré6m the cAstle gate? 
Shé had dréams all yéster- night Of her 6wn betréthed knight; 


“And shé in the midnight wo6od will pr4y For the wéal of her léver that’s far away. 


As opposed to such versification as this, the so-called “regular 
meters” of modern accentuating verse yield not a superior rhythm 
(if such a thing as a superior rhythm can be conceived), but a 


35 Whether or no we approve of this rendition of the lines, Coleridge explicitly states 
that he intends it. 


WILLIAM R. ARNOLD 197 


monotony of color that is foreign to the most “‘regular” of Greek 
meters.” 

For purposes of metrical analysis and theory, all connected 
Hebrew speech may be divided into sections, each consisting of 
one or more syllables and dominated by a single stress-accent. 
I call such a section a lexic section; any specific quantity of 
connected language being a lexis. The laws of phonetics and the 
rules of Hebrew accentuation combine to limit the syllabitication 
of such a “‘lexic section” to the following six forms: 


ForM AND 
NAME SYMBOL DESCRIPTION 


pi. = or r Continuous lexic section. 
nD 3 ork Lexic section with break of continuity after the accent. 
DN NS or ἃ Lexicsection with break of continuity before the accent. 


p72 2 or Ὁ Lexie section with break of continuity both before and 
after the accent. 


ΞΡ ΞΙ͂, org Lexie section with double break of continuity before 
cs the accent. 

pnd 3 or d Lexie section with double break of continuity before, 
ae and single break after the accent. 

It should be observed (1) that the transition from one lexic 
section to another itself constitutes a break in the continuity of the 
lexis: 50 δὲ 9 or ka” is tdtatatd. And (2) that, the syllables being 
irrational, this transition from one lexic section to another takes 
place at no definite point of time between the two stress-accents; 
hence it is for our purpose—which is concerned merely with 
the place of the accents in time and their allocation among the 
syllables composing the lexis—immaterial whether we represent a 
lexis of the form tdtatatd by the formula k a or by the formula 
rg. There is, to be sure, a perceptible difference in the syllabic 
grouping of the alternative formulae; so Ὁ Ὁ Ὁ a comes nearer 
to representing the grouping of 

Bard Bracy, bard Bracy, your horses are fleet 
than does a g g g. But the difference is not one that we need 
observe very closely; the same allocation of the accents and the 


36 So far as concerns the English, at any rate, those ‘‘ regular meters” (unknown before 
Chaucer) are a bastard bookish product, demonstrably of exotic origin, and ultimately 
dependent upon quantifying patterns, which our language can ape but cannot copy. 

37 Pronounce these symbols in full and in Masoretic fashion: kérem arim; and read all 
symbols in Hebrew letters from right to left. 


198 RHYTHMS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS 


same rhythmization of the line being definitely indicated by either 
formula. 

A Hebrew lexis yields a rhythmic foot (i. e., is rhythmized) 
when (1) the lexic sections into which it is divided are so pro- 
nounced that their several accents fall at commensurate inter- 
vals of time, and when, moreover, (2) the intervals of time so 
determined are separable into two quantities sustaining to each 
other a rhythmical ratio. For example, the first verse of Genesis 
may be divided into seven lexic sections thus: g a g r da Ὁ. 
As ordinarily pronounced, the accents of this lexis do not fall at 
commensurate intervals of time. But even when, by means of the 
required acceleration and retardation of utterance, the accents are 
made to fall at equal intervals of time, and in consequence seven 
equal time-units are delimited,” the lexis is still not rhythmized; 
for the reason that seven equal time-units cannot be rhythmically 
balanced: they cannot be separated into two quantities sustaining 
to each other the ratio 1:1, or 2:3, or 1:2. But let the same 
lexis be divided into lexic sections thus: ga grrbab(rd 
being replaced with r r Ὁ by means of a supplementary —and 
because supplementary, unobjectionable — stress on the first 
syllable of ὉΠ ΓΙ), and let the intervals between accents be 
equalized, and we have the rhythm 4:4.” 

Every rhythmic time-interval of Hebrew poetry may be intro- 
duced by an accent borne by any one of the above six forms of 
lexic section. The rhythmopoiia of the lexis ra ra (1+1: 
1+1) differs from that of the lexis ra araa (1+1+1:1+ 
1+ 1); but the rhythmopoiia of r a a Ὁ differs in no respect 
from that of ἃ ἃ ἃ g. 

To indicate the omission of a stress-accent at the close of one 
time-unit and the opening of another, I employ the symbol " 
(or i). Thus the rhythmizomenon r i a a contains three accents 


38On the close of a final time-interval in rhythmopoiia by means of instantaneous 
phenomena, see above, p. 181. 

39 A rhythm, but not a sensible one; for the mind dissociates the particle MN from 
its objective DYAWM in apprehending the rhythm; showing that the rhythmization of 
Hebrew requires, besides a knowledge of what rhythm is, a genuine acquaintance with the 
language and some good taste. When by means of a supplementary stress on the second 
syllable of PWNS, the lexis is rendered ara grdab, we have both rhythm and 
good sense; if as much could be done with the rest of the chapter, there might be some 
warrant for speaking of a “‘ creation poem.”’ 


WILLIAM R. ARNOLD 199 


rhythmized 2:1+1. This ria a differs in rhythmopoiia from 
r aaa, but not in rhythm. On the other hand, whether in 
the lexis r i a a the section r be continued through the point 
represented by the negative symbol i to the beginning of the 
lexic section a, or stop short of that point and allow it to pass 
by in silence (by ‘‘pause”’), will affect in some measure the color 
of the lexis, but not the rhythmopoiia; so far as concerns this last 
the lexis may be pronounced in either manner indifferently. 

In illustration of our theory of the rhythmization of Hebrew 
poetry, I give an analysis of the rhythm of an old English poem, 
of the type still uninfected by the fiction of “rhythm” through 
uniform syllabification.” 


SAINT STEPHEN AND HEROD 
Rhythm: dactylic, 1:1 
Foot: 4:4 time-units 
Rhythmopoiia: (1+1:1+1):(14+1:2) 
Rhythmopoiia of the last two lines: (1+1:2):(1+1:2) 
RHAYTHMIZATION 41 TEXT 
rkraabri Seynt Stevene was a clerk in Kyng Herowdes halle, 
braabrai Andservyd him of bred and cloth, as every kyng befalle. 
kkkrbrai Stevyn out of kechone cam, wyth boris hed on honde; 
aaaakkri MHesawasterre was fayr and brygt over Bedlem stonde. 
aabraaai Hekyst adoun the boris hed and went in to the halle: 
rbrbrbri ‘I forsak the, Kyng Herowdes, and thi werkes alle. 
rbrbrbri ‘I forsak the, Kyng Herowdes, and thi werkes alle; 
aabrbrai Ther is a chyld in Bedlem born is beter than we alle.’ 
rkrkraai ‘What eylyt the, Stevene? What is the befalle ? 
kbraabri Lakkyt the eyther mete or drynk in Kyng Herowdes 
halle ?’ 
kbraabri ‘Lakit me neyther mete nor drynk in Kyng Herowdes 
halle; ; 
aabrbrai Ther isa chyld in Bedlem born is beter than we alle.’ 
bbkrrbai ‘What eylyt the, Stevyn? Art thu w6d, or thu gynnyst 
to brede ? 
40Tt is preserved in a British Museum manuscript assigned to the age of Henry VI; 
the ballad itself is of course older. I follow the spelling of Gummere, Old English Ballads, 
Boston, 1894, pp. 295f. The poem will be found also in Sargent and Kittredge, English and 
Scottish Popular Ballads, edited from the collection of Francis James Child, Boston and 
New York, 1904, pp. 40f. 
41 As indicated above, the same rhythmization of the first couplet, for example, might 
be expressed by resolving the lexis into 
rraaaaai 
aaaaaaali 


but this gives the impression ofa syllabic standard of composition, which the evidence does 
not warrant our attributing to the poet. 


200 RHYTHMS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS 


| RHYTHMIZATION TEXT 

kbrabrri_ Lakkyt the eyther gold or fe, or ony ryche wede ?’ 

kbraarri ‘Lakyt me neyther gold ne fe, ne non ryche wede; 

aabrbaai Ther is a chyld in Bedlem born sal helpyn us at our 
nede.’ 

raakraai ‘That isal so soth, Stevyn, al so soth, iwys, 

kkrrbrai As this capoun crowe sal that lyth here in myn dysh.’ 

aaararai That word was not so sone seyd, that word in that halle, 

brgaabri The capoun crew Christus natus est ! among the lordes 
alle. 

krabaaai ‘Rysyt up, myn turmentowres, be to and al be on, 

bkkabrai And ledyt Stevyn out of this toun, and stonyt hym wyth 
ston |’ 


kr kibaai Tokyn he Stevene, and stonyd hym in the way, 
brbibkri And therfore is his evyn on Crystes owyn day. 


Another example of unadulterated accentuating versification 
I take from Midsummer-Nights Dream, Act III, Scene ii: 


Rhythm: dactylic, 1:1 
Foot: 2:2 time-units 
Rhythmopoiia: 1+1:1+1 


RHYTHMIZATION TEXT 
rarr On the ground Sleep sound: 
rara [1] apply To your eye, 
kkra_ Gentle lover, remedy. 
rary When thou wak’st Thou tak’st 
rara ‘True delight In the sight 
rbra Of thy former lady’s eyes: 
r bra And the country proverb known, 
braa That every man should take his own, 
r bra _ In your waking shall be shown: 
rgrg Jack shall have Jill; Nought shall go ill; 
aaaa The man shall have his mare again, 
arai and all shall be well. 


The subject of the allocation of accents for rhythmic purposes 
and the license which Hebrew poetry allows in that respect, belongs 
in a treatise on Hebrew meter, which this essay does not pretend 
to be. We must limit ourselves to a few very general observations. 

It is as impossible in Hebrew as it is in English to fix the 
metrical value of a lexis apart from the particular rhythmopoiia 
in which that lexis is employed. To the extent assumed by those 
Hebrew metricists who set forth absolutely what a certain Hebrew 


WILLIAM R. ARNOLD 201 


syllable or word “counts for’’ and whether or not it does ‘‘count,” 
the feat is an impossible one even in connection with a quantifying 
Greek lexis. In the case of an accentuating lexis, the attempt is 
the height of absurdity. 

As in English, so in Hebrew, a syllable ordinarily unaccented 
may receive a supplementary accent when the exigencies of the 
rhythmopoiia demand it; and, under the same conditions, a syl- 
lable otherwise accented may lose its accent. On the other hand, 
the shifting of an accent from one syllable to another for merely 
euphonic reasons (the lexis being in any case divisible into lexic 
sections) is a linguistic and not a rhythmic phenomenon; inci- 
dentally it frequently makes possible the rhythmization of a lexis 
with more justice to the sense, but it contributes nothing to the 
rhythmopoiia. The regular alternation of accented with unac- 
cented syllables, to which accentuating languages are prone, 
should never be spoken of as “the rhythmical flow” or as “a 
rhythmic law.” For the rest, I agree with Sievers” that reces- 
sion of the accent to a closed syllable is actually practiced by the 
Masoretic tradition though it is not indicated by any tone-sign. 
In this connection it cannot be too strongly emphasized that the 
Masoretic accents are primarily indicative of intonation and not 
of stress. And while it is of course true that stressed syllables 
were selected for intonation, it is not true that no syllables were 
stressed that were not intoned: pw-ans" of Josh. 8:32 cannot 
possibly be pronounced without a ‘stress-accent on the second as 
well as on the fourth syllable—to say nothing of such combina- 
tions as ΤΌΣΩ ΟΞ ΟΝ of Ps. 119:6. Finally, since stress and 
tone are not identical, there is no reason why a supplementary 
stress-accent may not in case of necessity be placed upon a sheva, 
when the latter represents a syllable that to the consciousness of 
the language is genuine though almost wholly suppressed.” 

As regards the vocalization of Hebrew, I am of course not 
under the delusion that the author of Judges 5 and the cour- 
tiers of David pronounced exactly as did later the teachers of 
Jerome and the Masorites of the seventh century. But, in the 
first place, we must not overlook the fact that the greater part of 


42 Loc. cit., pp. 225 f. 43 Cf. Sievers, loc. cit., p. 157. 


202 RHYTHMS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS 


the change, whatever it was, had taken place before the Maccabean 
Psalms were composed; and, second, although we have reason to 
reject here and there a detail, from the Masoretic system as a 
whole we cannot succeed in detaching ourselves: it is the only 
historical system of pronouncing Hebrew that has come down to 
us from ancient times, and however we may quarrel with the 
science of the Masorites, we must be controlled by their evidence. 
When, moreover, we recall that, though Shakespere’s language, 
with the Elizabethan pronunciation, is all but unintelligible to the 
present generation, Shakespere’s rhythms have been transmitted 
to us unimpaired, we shall realize that a vast amount of phonetic 
change is compatible with permanence of rhythmic form. And 
even assuming that the accentuation of Hebrew in Old Testament 
times, and not alone the quality of its vowels, differed considerably 
from the tradition, the difference would affect mainly the rhythm- 
ization of the lexis, and not its rhythmopoiia. In any case, our 
uncertainty as to the ancient pronunciation of Hebrew cannot be 
pleaded in justification of any rhythmically bottomless theory of 
Hebrew meter. 

The rhythmopoiia of Hebrew poetry is, as we should expect, 
of the simplest and crudest description. The feet are, in my 
judgment, without exception dactylic, though of three different 
magnitudes: 2:2, 3:3, and 4:4 time-units, the last compounded 
of two subordinate feet 2:2. 

The continuously employed rhythmopovretic schemes are: 

“ ἘΠ ΡῚ 
τ ΞΕ -Ὲ 1181 Ξ|Ξ ΞΕ 1} 
{{π|1: ΕἸΣ ΕἸ ἸΞΕῚΣ 
(1+ 1:141):(1 + 1:2) 
Sporadically the quantity 2 is substituted for1-+1. I am not 
prepared to say that the rhythmopoiia (1+ 1:2):(1+ 1:2) was 
not also employed continuously, instead of 1+1-+1:1-+1-+1. 

The meters of Hebrew poetry are accordingly expressed in 

terms of lexic sections as follows: 
rara Quadruple measure 
raaraa_ Sextuple measure 


rararara_  Octuple measure 
rararari_  Octuple measure catalectic 


WituiaAM R. ARNOLD 203 


Both r and a stand for lexic sections of any form: r, k, a, b, g, 
or ἃ, Sporadically, r a of the meters may be replaced by r i, 

If, as suggested above, 1 was sometimes substituted continu- 
ously for every fourth as well as every eighth lexic section of the 
octuple measure, we have an additional meter, rarirari 
(as the alternative of r a a r a a), which we may then desig- 
nate Octuple measure dicatalectic. 

These meters should not be named “‘tetrameters, hexameters, 
octameters, and heptameters;” 
anything, mean quantities that yield four, six, eight, and seven 
rhythmic feet respectively ; whereas each of these measures yields 
but one rhythmic foot, or at best, in the case of the octuple meas- 


for those terms, if they mean 


ures, two subordinate rhythmic feet. Sievers’ terms, ‘“ Vierer, 
Sechser, Doppelvierer, Siebener,” are intrinsically less objection- 
able, but now unfortunately associated with the conception of so 
and so many “‘irrational feet.”” The terms I have employed seem 
to me both the most scientific and the least misleading. 

In the subjoined specimens of Hebrew poetry, rhythmized in 
accordance with the several measures just described, supple- 
mentary accents are indicated by +; words combined for accentual 
purposes are united by maqgef. 


QUADRUPLE MEASURE, δὰ 18 Ἢ 
ἘΗΥΤΗΜΟΡΟΙΙΑ: 1+1:1+1 
Psalm 24:7-10 


TEXT RHYTHMIZATION 
Dy pyww Nw Ra πὶ ᾿ὶ 
Do ὑπ ww NN ARN 
AFA 1 wil ea ΞῚ ἃ 
ΞΞΓΙ 7% ΓΙ 2 ΞΡ ἢ 
mine) ny a INRNRN 
manda 123 71m δ ἽΝΝ 
p> ΣΝ" ἘΣ Nw Δ ΝΣ 
poi ἽΠΠΩ ww Sas ae | 
IF tb xa rg Bag Pate 
Masel yon an ἈΞ iba) 
Tan Paw mixar aim ΝΞ ἃ δὲ 
Isaiah 21:11 
yw Np "ON NAN 
mb ΓΙ yaya = en 51 
22 ΤΩ δ... δ ἢ 


204 RHYTHMS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS 


SEXTUPLE MEASURE, 881884" 
ΒΗΥΤΗΜΟΡΟΙΙΑ: 1+1+1:1-+1-+1 


Exodus 15: 3-6 
TEXT 

Mansa ws TT 
πΣῚΘ mp7 
~woy wm. 
"07059 mann 

rata aie Pi 

men Ὁ" 


yaw mim 
mame 
mio pa wD 
apsiyaa i" 
moa “385 
ΔῊΝ YAN 


RHYTHMIZATION 


Zs InLSG 
I“I“GSI 


δὲ 
Eero 
Peers Ss We 
ESSE) 
ARNRRN 
ARR 


OCTUPLE MEASURE ACATALECTIC, δὰ Ἢ δὲ Ἢ Νὰ Ἢ δὲ Ἢ 


ΕΥΤΗΜΟΡοΙΙΑ: (1+1:1-+1):(1+1:1-+1) 


Judges 5: 21-23 
seep Sms pap Sm: 
ΠΝ Mans manta 


TPaw TAN TAN 
p55 mim ΠΣ 


pp wp dm 

DIO APY ὙΔΟΓῚ TN 
mim ΤΩΝ TI TN 
Mim marys wa NST 


ZuUA ἡ 
%S5SU 


ZLB ws 
wou U 
ZBAw & 
uw BS Ἢ 
UBwu %& 
ιν. Γι. 


OCTUPLE MEASURE CATALECTIC, 9°78 58784 
Ruytumopora: (1- 1:1 -Ἐ 1: -Ἐ 1:2) 


Lamentations 4:1, 2 


Ant DYN TDN 
Dips MID|nwn 
DAP pr ἫΞ 

WAN 2339 WWM) MN 


Son onlsn x 
mizin >> wE 
TD. ow~bdan 
sh ΓΙΌΣ 


rus 5 
LAA 


Z2ASU 
ZARB 
κι! SZ 
%SI2 
uw AUS 
%Zw% IS 


OCTUPLE MEASURE DICATALECTIC, "7 83°48 4 


Raytrumoporra: (14-1: 2): (1+1: 2) 


The last three of the following lines seem to demand this measure; the 


first line is octuple catalectic: 
Isaiah 1:2,3 


TAS DIN Daw ἼΣΩΣ 
“maa ond os 
mp ws 

yp xd Oe 


sei) mona a) 
ἼΞἼΣῸΞ Om 
soy ON Wan 
ἸΏ ΝΟ ay 


ΒΒ Νὰ ἐν 


δ δὲ πὶ Ξ) κ' Ξὶ δὲ 
ἢ πὶ δὰ ἡ Τ᾿ al 
ἈΝ ΔΝ ΞΙ πὶ δὲ 
Bee ὦ δὰ Ἵ 


4 Jan 19 gloss; otherwise the line rhythmizes: 3 45455 84. 


45Or &, if we discard patah furtive. 
4679 “WD WAIN gloss. 
47 ἼΝΘ gloss. 


THE PRE-EXISTENCE OF THE SOUL IN THE 
BOOK OF WISDOM AND IN THE 
RABBINICAL WRITINGS 


FRANK CHAMBERLIN PORTER 


THE PRE-EXISTENCE OF THE SOUL IN THE BOOK OF 
WISDOM AND IN THE RABBINICAL WRITINGS 


FRANK CHAMBERLIN PoRTER 


I. THE PRE-EXISTENCE OF THE SOUL IN THE BOOK OF WISDOM 


Out of the popular eclectic Greek philosophy of the second or 
third centuries before Christ, the writer of the Book of Wisdom 
is commonly understood to have borrowed elements both Stoic 
and Platonic in origin. Stoic influence is seen especially in his 
conception of Wisdom as no longer only a personification of the 
creative thought and energy of God, as in Proverbs, chap. 8, 
but a substantial entity, a spirit filling the world and holding 
all things together (1:7), uniting in itself physical, rational, 
and moral qualities, and betraying unmistakably in many of its 
attributes and functions the influence of the Stoic world-soul.’ 
The Platonic element is found chiefly in the conception of the 
soul of man, its pre-existence, its relation to the body as some- 
thing foreign to its proper nature and a hindrance to its attainment 
of knowledge and virtue, and its essential immortality. 

The title of this essay calls, therefore, for a discussion of the 
supposed Platonic element in this book. Grimm’ describes this 
element as follows: 

From the Platonic philosophy he adopts the doctrines of the ὕλη 
ἄμορφος, the formless matter of which the world was made (11:17), of 
the pre-existence of souls (8:19, 20), of the body as the seat of sin (1:4; 
8:20) and as an obstacle to the attainment of a knowledge of the divine 
(9:15), and of the elevation of the wise and pious after death to com- 
munion with God. 

Other modern writers’ differ little from this statement of the 
doctrines of the book as to the pre-existence and the immortality 

Ἱπνεῦμα νοερόν, λεπτόν, εὐκίνητον, διήκει καὶ χωρεῖ διὰ πάντων, ἀπόρροια τῆς δόξης, ἀπαύγασμα 
φωτὸς ἀιδίου, κιτιλ. (7:22—8:1). 

2 Das Buch der Weisheit, 1860, p. 19. 

3 See, for example, Zeller, Die Philosophie der Griechen, 3d ed. IIT, ii, pp. 272 f.; Schtirer, 
Geschichte des jtidischen Volkes (1898), III, 380; Siegfried in Kautzsch’s Apokryphen und 


Pseudepigraphen, I, 477, and in Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible, IV, 929; Toy, Encyclo- 
paedia Biblica, IV, 5342; Farrar in Wace’s Apocrypha, I, 407. 


207 


208 PRE-EXISTENCE OF SouL IN Book oF WISDOM 


of the soul, and as to the dualistic conception of the world and of 
human nature upon which these doctrines rest. 

It is customary, in other words, to attribute to the author of 
the Book of Wisdom almost the fully developed doctrine of Philo 
in regard to the soul and its relation to the body.’ Souls, in 
Philo’s view, pre-exist, the air being full of them. Those that 
remain true to their nature, incorporeal, are the angels. It is only 
souls that somehow have lower propensities that sink to earth and 
enter bodies. Of these some are further degraded by the earthly 
prison or grave that holds them. The task of the philosopher 
is to flee from the body and the outer world. By contem- 
plation, rising to ecstasy, the soul may even now escape sense 
and attain a vision of truth and of God. On this ecstatic vision 
Philo puts even greater emphasis than on the escape of the soul 
from the body at death. Such a doctrine of the soul’s pre- 
existence and of the body as a prison from which release is a 
blessing is attributed by Josephus to the Essenes (8. J. ii. 8. 
11). Some such view indeed Josephus himself professes (B. J. 
iii. 8. 5), and puts also into the mouth of Eleazar (B. J. vii. 
8.7). A sentence from his own argument against suicide (B. J. 
111. 8.5) may be quoted, because it expresses well the idea that 
is commonly ascribed to the Book of Wisdom: Ta μέν ye σώματα 
θνητὰ πᾶσιν καὶ ἐκ φθαρτῆς ὕλης δεδημιούργηται, ψυχὴ δὲ ἀθάνατος 
ἀεὶ καὶ θεοῦ μοῖρα τοῖς σώμασιν ἐνοικίζεται. This sentence is con- 
sistently Hellenic, but in the context we have a curious blending 
of inharmonious Greek and Jewish conceptions which constitutes 
an effective warning to the student who looks for consistency 
in Jewish eschatology. 

The most elaborate study of the Greek element in the Book 
of Wisdom is that of Menzel.” His conclusion in regard to the 
Platonic (dualistic) element is that it is certainly to be recognized 
in the doctrine of the immortality of the soul (3:1, 9; 1:12; 6:19), 
the doctrine that the righteous after death are at once near to God, 
the pre-existence of the soul (8:19-20), the idea that as long as 
the soul is in the body it is imprisoned and oppressed (9:15), 


4See especially De gigantibus, 2-18; De somniis, i, 21-23, 31; De confus. ling., 17, 35; 
De migrat. Abr., 5; Leg. all., iii, 14, 22; De opif. mundi, 22, 40, 
5 Der griechische Eintluss auf Prediger und Weisheit Salomos, 1889 


FRANK CHAMBERLIN PORTER 209 


and the conception of ὕλη ἄμορφος (11:17). The question is 
open whether he derived these ideas directly from Plato, or ποί." 
It was the eclectic blending of Stoicism and Platonism by which 
he was affected. Nevertheless the relation between 9:15 and 
Phaedo 81 C is to Menzel, as it is to E. Pfleiderer,’ conclusive 
proof that the writer had actually read at least the Phaedo, and 
perhaps also, as Pfleiderer® argues, on account of 7:22. 80, the 
Cratylus. Menzel regards the idea that the body is a source of 
evil and sin (1:4; 8:20, 21; 9:15) as one of the points of likeness 
between the Book of Wisdom and Philo. 

In regard to the Stoic element it is commonly acknowledged 
that our author’s conception of Wisdom marks only a step, though 
an important one, from the Hebrew conception toward the Logos 
of Philo; but with reference to the Platonic element there is less 
caution; and since it is my purpose to show that greater reserva- 
tions, rather than less, are called for in the case of this latter 
element, I wish to point out what little support I may claim for 
a position against which the presumption is so strong. I do not 
find any doubt expressed of late as to the fully Platonic, or Phi- 
lonic, character of the doctrine of pre-existence in 8:19, 20. With 
the earlier debate, which turned on the question of the canonicity 
of the book, and on the interest of one side in affirming and of the 
other in denying the presence in it of an unchurchly doctrine, 
we need have nothing to do. There seems to be equally unani- 
mous consent to the opinion that the immortality of the soul is 
here accepted in the Greek sense, in contrast to the Jewish idea 
of resurrection. But even Grimm thinks that our author’s Greek 
notions were picked up as a part of the current culture of his time, 
rather than derived from study. Grimm notes also the entire 
absence in the Book of Wisdom of some Platonic doctrines which 
had an important place in Philo, such as the trichotomy of human 
nature, and most of all the doctrine of Ideas. He says, too, that 
the opinion, fundamental to Philo, that the body is the seat and 
source of evil, is only casually alluded to in Wisdom 1:4; 8:19; 
and that this idea is used for religious and practical rather than for 


6 Op. cit., p. 61. 
7 Die Philosophie des Heraklit von Ephesus (1886), pp. 290 f. 8 Pp. 299 f. 


210 PRE-EXISTENCE OF SoUL IN Book oF WISDOM 


speculative purposes (pp. 22, 23). But these reservations do not 
affect his interpretation of the crucial passages. Drummond,’ 
while he accepts the doctrine of pre-existence in the Greek sense, 
and says that souls are good and bad before their entrance upon 
earthly life, and that the quality of the bodies they obtain depends 
on their moral condition, yet finds that 9:15 does not represent 
the body as the active source of sin, but only as a check upon 
man’s higher aspirations, and that 1:4 does not mean that the 
body is a source of evil to the soul, but that it shares the ethical 
quality of the soul. Bousset, if I do not misjudge him, feels even 
more strongly the slenderness of the thread on which the supposed 
Platonic dualism of the book depends. The writer, he says, touches 
it in passing (9:15), but on the other hand implies that the divine 
wisdom dwells both in the soul and in the body of man (1:4). 
The pre-existence of souls is indeed indicated in 8:19, 20, but the 
passage means that the constitution of the body answers to the 
constitution of the soul. Though the author does not know the 
resurrection of the body, yet he does not directly express the 
thought that death is a freeing from the body, and that the con- 
tents of moral effort is the renunciation of the world. ‘Der 
dualistische Gedanke ist hier also nur in den ersten Ansadtzen 
vorhanden.’’” 

It has long been my conviction that the current language in 
regard to the Hellenism of the Book of Wisdom is misleading, 
and that it is more important to define the kind and degree of this 
Hellenism than to assert its reality. In particular in regard to 
the pre-existence of the soul, not only in Wisdom but in rabbinical 
and other Jewish books, it is not so useful to assert or deny as to 
define. . What did the Jews mean by pre-existence, and above all 
what did they mean by soul? 

The difference between the Jewish and the Greek ideas of 
pre-existence has been suggestively discussed by Harnack." He 
argues that to the Greek mind pre-existence is connected with 
the contrast between spirit and matter, and expresses the thought 


9 Philo Judaeus, I, 200 ff. 
10 Die Religion des Judentums (2. Aufl., 1906), pp. 461 f. 
11 History of Dogma, I, Appendix i. 


FRANK CHAMBERLIN PORTER 211 


that the idea, or form, or energy, of all things exists before their 
physical embodiment, and remains independent of this imperfect 
material copy. It is only the higher spiritual nature of things 
that pre-exists. The Jewish conception of pre-existence, on the 
other hand, rests on the contrast between God and man, and 
pictures or objectifies God’s foreknowledge and determination of 
all things, and his special thought and purpose regarding things 
of special worth. Things pre-exist just as they are afterward to 
appear, not in their idea or form, but in their proper selves. They 
are hidden with God, and in the appointed time are manifest on 
earth. Pre-existence in the Greek sense is an explanation of the 
nature of things and an exaltation of their value; in the Jewish 
sense it glorifies the power and wisdom of God. Such general- 
izations may, with some reserve, be accepted, and we may agree 
with Harnack’s conclusion that when Paul connected the contrast 
of spirit and flesh with the pre-existence of the Messiah he started 
the transition from a Jewish to a Greek Christology; and that 
incarnation is a Greek and not a Jewish conception. 

With reference to the pre-existence of the soul we may with 
due caution venture a somewhat different generalization, namely, 
that to the Greek the soul that pre-exists was or tended to be the 
personality, the man’s real thinking self; while to the Jew it was 
only a part of the coming man, the divine breath or spirit which 
was to make him alive, the breath (neshamah) of life which 
God breathes into the earthly form, making it a living being 
(nephesh).” There is scarcely a greater cause of confusion and 
difficulty in the comprehension of Hebrew modes of thought than 
the tendency—in part, to be sure, the necessity —that impels us 
to translate nephesh by the word “soul.” The nephesh is the 
life or the self of man, the living man himself, just as he is here 
and now. The older Hebrews had no word for body (σῶμα), and 
what we call body was not to them the opposite of nephesh, but 
was inseparable from it. When the Jews wished to speak of that 
which preceded and survived the earthly life of man the word 
they naturally used was not nephesh but neshamah (less often 
ruah), not the word that expressed the personal self of man, but 


12 Gen, 2:7, 


212 PRE-EXISTENCE OF SouL IN Book or WISDOM 


the word that suggested the divine in contrast to the earthly 
element that entered into his making. But the pre-existence of 
the neshamah is a very different thing from the pre-existence 
of the ψυχή. There is a kind of pre-existence of man which 
belongs naturally to the dualistic view of the world, of which 
Plato was the prophet. There is an entirely different kind of 
pre-existence which belongs to the religious attitude which the 
Hebrews instinctively maintained. That man comes from God 
and returns to God is said in Genesis 2:7 and in Ecclesiastes 12:7; 
in avery different sense in John 13:3; 16:28; still differently by 
the modern poet, 


When that which drew from out the boundless deep, 
Turns again home. 


Such expressions can be used by those who believe both in the 
pre-existence and in the immortality of the conscious personality ; 
by those who accept immortality, but not pre-existence, in this 
personal sense; and by those who reject personality in both cases. 
When we meet with the idea of the pre-existence of the soul, 
therefore, we need chiefly to ask what is meant by soul, what is it 
that pre-exists ? 

In order to determine whether the Book of Wisdom and the 
rabbinical writings contain a Jewish or a Greek conception of 
the pre-existence of the soul we must define these two conceptions 
a little more precisely, though it can be only in bare summary. 

There is a sense in which pre-existence entered into the old 
Hebrew conception of man. It was, however, not the pre-existence 
of the person himself, the ‘‘I,” the nephesh, that was in mind, 
but that of the two elements of which the man was made. The 
fundamental passage for later Jewish ideas on this subject was 
Gen. 2:7. Man is on one side dust from the earth, and on the 
other, living breath, or spirit, from God. Man is taken out of 
the earth and returns to earth again (Gen. 3:19). God’s breath 
(neshamah or ruah)”™ which makes him a living nephesh is 
withdrawn at death; and this also goes back to the source from 
which it came. Death, then, is the return of each part of man 


13 Compare Gen. 2:7 with 6:17; 7:15, 22; and see Job 32:8; 33:4; 34:14; Isa, 57:16. 


FRANK CHAMBERLIN PORTER 213 


to its source.* It would be possible, therefore, for the Hebrew, 
in reflecting on what precedes man’s birth, to think either of the 
body as it is formed in the womb and comes ultimately from the 
earth, or of the neshamah (ruah) of life which God breathes 
into the earthly form. As a matter of fact, however, this breath 
or spirit of God seemed to the Hebrews to belong to God to such 
a degree that for a long time they did not even individualize each 
man’s share in it, still less connect with it the man’s personal 
consciousness. It remained more natural for them to apply the 
personal pronoun to the pre-existing body than to the pre-existing 
neshamah: man comes from earth and returns to earth again.” 
The nearest approach to actual reflection on the pre-existence of 
man in the Old Testament is found in Psalm 139; and here it is 
the pre-existent body with which the poet in some sense identifies 
himself. It is “I” that am formed in the womb and even wrought 
in the lowest parts of the earth—these two being curiously blended 
in thought, as they are also in Job 1:21, and Strach, 40:1. But 
we should expect the idea to arise in course of time that the 
breath of God also was for each man in some sense a distinct 
entity. Beginnings in this direction may possibly be found in 
such passages as Job 32:8; 33:4; Prov. 20:27, and especially the 
expression “the neshamoth that I made,” in Isa. 57:21. There 
is also the hint in Eccles. 3:21 that there were in the writer’s 
time those who claimed (in contrast to Ps. 104:29, 30, etc.) that 
the ruah of man had a different destiny after death from the 
ruah of the beast. It is not my purpose to trace the history of 
these conceptions, but only to indicate the line along which Jewish 
thought, so long as it remained distinctly Jewish, would naturally 
move. 

In regard to Greek conceptions, what needs here to be said 
relates principally to Plato, and especially to the Phaedo, since 
this is the book by which the writer of Wisdom is thought to 
have been influenced.” Homer determined popular Greek ideas 
about death far more than Plato ever did. The Homeric Hades 


14 Job 34:14, 15; Eccles. 12:7; Sirach, 40:11 [Heb. ]. 

15 Gen. 3:19; Job 10:9; 34:14, 15; Ps. 22:30 [29]; 30:10 [9]; 103:14; 104:29; Eccles. 3:20; 
12:7; Sirach, 16:30; 17:1; Pirke Aboth, 3:1. 

16 See especially Rohde, Psyche (2. Aufl., 1898). 


214 PRE-EXISTENCE OF SOUL IN Book oF WISDOM 


is very like the Hebrew Sheol. There are the same objective 
pictures of the dead, and at the same time gloom and emptiness 
and unreality characterize their lot. One distinction, however, is 
significant. Homer can call the shades in Hades ψυχαί; and at 
the height of the Greek faith in a future life Plato is still willing 
to describe the immortality he contends for as a persistence of 
the ψυχή in Hades.” The word nephesh is not so used in the 
Old Testament, and at the height of Jewish thought Sheol 
becomes exclusively the place of punishment for the wicked. 
Psyche is an appropriate title for Rohde’s book on the worship 
of the soul and the faith in immortality among the Greeks; but 
no one would use Nephesh as the title of a book on Hebrew 
ideas of the life after death. Greek thought issued at its best in 
a doctrine of the immortality of the soul; Hebrew thought in a 
doctrine of the resurrection. Undoubtedly the Greek conception 
of the transmigration of souls represented in its early popular 
forms a feeling like that which the Jewish conception of resurrec- 
tion expresses, that there can be no true life of man apart from a 
body. But on the higher levels of Greek thought, in the Orphic 
Mysteries, in Pythagoras, and in Plato, metempsychosis was so 
transformed that reincarnation was a disciplinary punishment, and 
the ideal to be striven after was the permanent escape of the soul 
from the body. The highest point attainable in the Hebrew line 
of development is that expressed by Paul’s conception of a σῶμα 
πνευματικόν. Greek thought culminates in Plato’s τότε yap αὐτὴ 
καθ᾽ αὑτὴν ἔσται ἡ ψυχὴ χωρὶς τοῦ σώματος (Phaedo, 67 A). The 
tendency of Greek thought, then, was to regard the soul as the 
personality, and with reference both to what precedes and to what 
follows man’s earthly life, to fix attention upon the soul. The 
difference between the Greek idea of metempsychosis as a series 
of incarnations of the soul in different bodies, and the Jewish idea 
of resurrection, the reunion of the soul with its former body, or 
the reviving of the dead body by a (new?)™ breath of life from 
God, illustrates the Greek tendency to connect the personality 


17 Phaedo, 71 Ὁ, E, 81 C, 106 E, 107 A. 


18 See Ezek. 37:1-14, which, though it describes in figure, the revival of Israel, discloses 
the way in which a Hebrew would conceive of the resurrection of the individual. Here the 
old bones are reclothed with flesh, and revived by a fresh breath (rua h) of God. 


FRANK CHAMBERLIN PORTER 215 


with the soul, and the Hebrew tendency to connect it with the 
body. The fact that resurrection is characteristic of the Jewish 
view and immortality of the Greek is connected also with the 
national character of the Jewish religion and the individual char- 
acter of the Greek. But resurrection, in contrast to immortality, 
did not arise and maintain itself simply as a part of the Messianic 
hope. It was deeply rooted in Jewish ideas of man and God. 
The Greek asked, Is the soul immortal? The Jews, If a man die, 
shall he live again? 

The ruling conception in the philosophy of Plato was that 
there is a realm of eternal and changeless ideas, of which earthly 
and sensible things are copies, and upon which all things depend 
for their being. True being, reality, belongs to this realm alone. 
Man’s highest capacity is that of knowing this invisible world of 
ideas, that is, the capacity for abstract thought. That the soul 
of man has this power is proof that it belongs by nature to that 
higher realm. Moreover, since the soul’s knowledge of the ideas 
is not given to it by the senses, it must be in reality memory, and 
hence attests the fact of the soul’s pre-existence in the sphere of 
eternal realities. The soul is in its nature related to the ideas, 
and shares with them their quality of eternity. All abstract 
thought bears witness to the soul’s unearthly origin, but espe- 
cially its knowledge of the highest ideas, such as goodness, beauty, 
justice.” The immortality of the soul is therefore an inference 
from this pre-existence, of which we have immediate evidence in 
our knowledge, or memory, of abstract truths and ideals. “In its 
capacity to know the eternal the soul bears within itself the surest 
guarantee of being itself eternal.”” But this soul which has no 
end because it had no beginning, and attests its eternity to itself 
by its power to know things not given it through the bodily 
senses, is bound while on earth to a body which is foreign to its 
nature. The body hinders it in that search for knowledge which 
is its true life. The doctrine of transmigration, as developed by 
the Mysteries and Pythagoras, furnished Plato perhaps with the 
basis for his theory that knowledge is memory, and certainly with 
his explanation of the unnatural union of soul with body. The 


19 See Phaedo, 73-16; Symposium, 211, 212. 20 Rohde, Psyche, II, 285. 


216 PRE-EXISTENCE OF SOUL IN Book oF WISDOM 


eternal soul must pass through the discipline of successive incar- 
nations in the bodies of men, or even of beasts, until it attains 
such purity that it may be delivered from the circle of births and 
remain in the realm to which in truth it belongs. To attain this 
salvation is the aim of the philosopher. His method is to separate 
the soul as much as possible from the body, to dwell in the realm 
of ideas, not in that of sense, to repress bodily passions and desires.” 
Even in the case of the philosopher it is only the complete separa- 
tion of soul from body by death that brings the open vision of 
truth. He practices dying even now, and welcomes the approach 
of death. 

The pre-existence of the soul is, then, more certain than its 
immortality, for it is attested by present experience. Plato has 
other arguments for the soul’s immortality based on its nature, 
especially as not composite and as self-moving; but to the argu- 
ment from ‘“‘memory” he returns as the surest basis of his hope.” 
This means that the pre-existence and the immortality of the soul 
alike depend for him upon the reality of the ideas; and this is the 
supreme article of faith in the religion of Plato. The true nature 
of reality is not in matter, and the true nature of man is not in 
the body. 

This brief statement may serve to bring before our minds the 
characteristic marks of the Platonic doctrine of pre-existence. It 
is clear that it concerns the soul alone, and that the soul which 
pre-exists is not only that which lives, but that which thinks. It 
is evident that the doctrine stands in the closest relation to a 
general view of the world, a dualistic view, in which the contrast 
of spirit and matter is central and all-determining. It is a doctrine 
which involves a definite conception of the nature of evil as having 
its source and seat in matter, and a distinctly ascetic theory and 
ideal of conduct. It is inseparable, also, from a belief in immor- 
tality in which two elements are to be distinguished, the inherent, 
unconditional indestructibility of the soul as such (ψυχὴ πᾶσα 
adavatos),” and the goal of a permanently incorporeal life of the 
soul, a blessed immortality, which is conditioned on its renuncia- 
tion of the pleasures and passions of the body and its attaining of 


21 Phaedo, 65 ff, 22 Tbid., 91, 92; ef, 72-77. 23 Phaedrus, 245 C. 


FRANK CHAMBERLIN PORTER Pai 7 


knowledge and virtue. The souls that carry with them out of 
the earthly life no taint of the body, but have desired death and 
practiced dying while on earth, will live forever in the realm of 
reality, in communion with the gods.“ Plato’s doctrine of immor- 
tality is therefore in part a metaphysic and in part a religion. 
The two, however, are not to be separated as if Plato wavered 
inconsistently between the natural and the conditional immortality 
of the soul. The redemption of the soul from the body is accom- 
plished by knowledge, the knowledge of eternal truths and reali- 
ties, and of the soul as belonging by nature to the realm of eternal 
things. The philosopher is one who knows and applies the fact 
that the soul is imperishable. By realizing the soul’s inescapable 
immortality, and living in the light of this knowledge, he attains 
immortality in the full and blessed sense. 

It is evident how great a difference separates the native Hebrew 
from the Greek, and especially from the Platonic, ideas of the 
pre-existence of the soul; and also that the difference is closely 
connected with the idea of the soul. In general the Hebrew 
meant by the pre-existing soul the life or life-giving energy which 
man receives from God; while Plato meant by it not only that 
which makes the body alive but also that in man which knows 
truth, the power of thought; hence, certainly in a far higher 
degree than neshamah to the Hebrew, the ψυχή to Plato was the 
self-conscious moral personality, and the pre-existence of the soul 
was therefore more truly the pre-existence of the person.” 

The contention of this paper is that, contrary to the current 
view, both the rabbis of the Talmudic period, and the writer of 
the Book of Wisdom were, at this point, Jewish, not Greek. 

Turning now to the Book of Wisdom, we shall look first at 
the short list of passages from which it is inferred that the writer 
accepted the Platonic doctrine of the pre-existence of the soul. 


24 Phaedo, 80, 81. 


25So much may be said without entering into the difficult question just how far Plato 
succeeded in securing immortality for the conscious personality in our modern sense of that 
word. It must be confessed that metempsychosis, the successive inhabiting of different 
bodies by the soul, though it connects the personality more closely with the soul than with 
the body, does not convey so vivid a sense of the personal identity of the one who now lives 
with the one who will live hereafter as does the doctrine of resurrection, which connects 
the personality with the body more closely than with the soul. See R. Καὶ. Gaye, The Platonic 
Conception of Immortality, 1904, 


218 PRE-EXISTENCE OF SouL IN Book oF WISDOM 


The first of these passages, 1:4, cited by Grimm, with 8:20, as 
evidence of the Platonic conception that the body is the seat of 
sin, can be shortly dismissed. Surely nothing that other passages 
may yield can avail to make this Platonic. The author begins 
his book with the thought that God can be found and known by 
men only on the condition of righteousness. Sin shuts men off 
from that Power (1:3), or Wisdom (1:4), or Spirit (1:5), which 
is the medium, or representative, of God’s immanent presence in 
the world (1:7) and in men (1:46). ‘For into a soul devising 
evil wisdom will not enter, nor will it dwell in a body that is in 
debt to sin.” Grimm remarks (pp. 50 f.) that although ‘‘body 
and soul” means the human being in his totality, yet ‘‘the author 
would not have used this paraphrase if he had not assumed a 
source and seat of moral evil also in the body (well known as a 
fundamental dogma of developed Alexandrianism in Philo), 
although according to his view not all bodies are in equal degree 
permeated by the principle of sin (8:19, 20).” If in the words, 
‘wenn er nicht Quelle und Sitz des sittlich Bésen auch im Leibe 
angenommen hiitte,” the ‘“‘auch” means ‘‘as well as in the soul,” 
then the Philonic character of the verse is denied in the sentence 
that affirms it. In fact it is brought in by Grimm only by sheer 
force, and is positively excluded by the verse itself and by its 
context. The two clauses of the verse are in rhythmical parallel- 
ism, and mean, individually and together, simply that the divine 
wisdom will not enter into a sinful man. At most they supple- 
ment each other by suggesting that there are more spiritual and 
more physical sorts of sin which equally shut the divine spirit out. 
But the body is no more the seat of sin than the soul, and there 
is nothing to suggest that either body or soul is the source of sin. 
This verse says the same thing that is said in other words in vss. 
8 and 5. The sins which are in the writer’s mind as those that 
especially shut out the spirit of God are not sins of sense, but 
perverse thoughts and blasphemous or lying words about the 
meaning and conduct and end of life, such as chap. ii reports. 
The man described by the phrase, κακότεχνος ψυχή, is more vividly 
present before the writer’s eye than the man suggested by the 
phrase, σῶμα κατάχρεος ἁμαρτίας. The verse is definitely un- 


FRANK CHAMBERLIN ΡΟΒΤΕΕΒ 219 


Platonic, for it implies that the divine Wisdom can dwell in the 
body as well as in the soul, and that the soul is not good by nature 
and the body evil, but that body and soul alike may be either good 
or evil. The contrast between ψυχή and σῶμα is like that of Prov. 
11:17 rather than that of Greek dualism. The words are Greek, 
but the thought is Hebraic. Man is a unity, and his character, good 
or bad, belongs to both of the two parts of which he is composed. 
Paul, the Hebrew, could think of the body as a dwelling-place of 
the spirit of God (I Cor. 6:19), and of a purity that includes 
body as well as soul (I Thess. 5:23) ;* but this is not Platonism. 
There remain three verses on which the Hellenistic dualism 
of our author depends, 8:20; 9:15; 11:17. On 8:19, 20 alone 
depends the accepted view that he held to Plato’s and Philo’s 
doctrine of the pre-existence of the soul. It is a rather heavy 
weight for these two short verses to sustain. They form, in fact, 
a parenthesis, and would not be in the least missed if they were 
dropped out. It is not my purpose, however, to cast doubt upon 
them. Though they are parenthetical, they serve a good purpose, 
and are, as I hope to prove, quite characteristic of the author’s 
mode of thought. In the person of Solomon he describes his 
early love of Wisdom, and his determination to find and follow 
her (8:2-18). But when he sought her he discovered that she 
was not to be gained except as the gift of God, and that he must 
therefore resort to prayer (8:21—9:18); and this in spite of the 
fact that he was thoroughly and exceptionally good by nature 
(8:19, 20), and so had fulfilled that fundamental condition for 
the obtaining of wisdom which is set forth in 1:1-6. The thought 
in general is that expressed in 7:1-7. Even Solomon, great as 
was his natural endowment, was only like other men, and gained 
Wisdom only by a way that is open to every man, that of prayer. 
He was perfect among the sons of men, and yet he needed the 
Wisdom that comes from God (9:6). 
How then is this natural goodness of Solomon described ? 

παῖς δὲ ἤμην εὐφυής. 

ψυχῆς τε ἔλαχον ἀγαθῆς, 

μᾶλλον δὲ ἀγαθὸς ὧν 

ἦλθον εἰς σῶμα ἀμίαντον. 


206 569 also Rom. 6:12; 12:1. 


220 PRE-EXISTENCE OF SouL IN Book or WISDOM 


According to the usual understanding of the passage the author 
means by μᾶλλον δὲ to substitute the second expression for the 
first; and this second expression is thought to imply that the soul 
pre-exists, and has already attained a certain character, good or 
bad; and that, according to this character, it is assigned to a bet- 
ter or a worse body. To this it is commonly added that the body 
is in any case something foreign to the soul and a source of evil 
to it (9:15), because it is composed of matter (11:17). It will 
serve our purpose to reproduce in summary Grimm’s comments. 


The author, he thinks, started to write the common expression, which 
would have been, “I was of good nature and was allotted a good soul and 
an undefiled body ;” but as he did not share the common view he did not 
complete the sentence, but substituted another for it (vs. 20). This would 
have been clearer if he had written, “Or rather, being a good soul I came 
into an undefiled body.” This is evidently what he meant. The “un- 
defiled body” is a body not defiled by the power of the sensuous, or one 
in which the power of the sense-impulse is not so strong as to hinder the 
effort of the spirit toward wisdom and virtue. The author accordingly 
sees in the body, asa part of matter (9:5 [15?]), the source of evil, although 
his view on this point is not so fully developed as in Philo. In saying 
that the soul was good even before its union with the body, the pre- 
existence of souls is presupposed, according to the familiar Platonic con- 
ception, which Philo and the Essenes also appropriated. Yet our author 
has somewhat modified the Platonic idea, for he thinks of the character 
of the body as dependent on the character of the soul in its pre-existent 
state, and so assumes two sorts of pre-existing souls, good and bad. 
There are points of analogy with this in Plato and in Philo, but in Plato 
the best souls escape reincarnation, and in Philo they are not drawn to 
earth and do not enter human bodies at all, while of those that do enter 
the earthly life the better class regard the body as a prison, and long to 
return to their heavenly home. But in spite of this difference, Philo’s 
view teaches us the spirit in which the writer of Wisdom also may have 
thought of the difference between good and bad souls in their pre-existent 
state. The good were less attracted by the earthly and sensuous than 
the bad. It is also to be assumed that the writer did not imagine that 
souls were created good and bad by God. They could only become so 
by their free choice.” 


Now have we a right to say that in vs. 19 the author falls into 
a traditional (Jewish) form of expression with which he does not 
agree, and then in vs. 20 corrects himself and substitutes his new 


27Grimm, Das Buch der Weisheit, pp. 176-78. 


FRANK CHAMBERLIN PORTER 221 


(Greek) conception; so that we ought to neglect the first verse 
and use only the second in interpreting his thought? Grimm 
says that μᾶλλον δὲ is used sometimes to heighten, but more often 
to correct, what has been said; but in none of the instances he 
cites does the second sentence simply displace the first, or put a 
correct statement in the place of an erroneous one. In speech 
one may slip into an error and correct it with an ‘‘or rather.” “On 
p. 8, or rather 10, we read, etc.” But in writing we do not leave 
the error standing and add the correction. When one deliberately 
writes and leaves two alternative forms of expression, connected 
by μᾶλλον δέ, we know that each has value to him, and that he 
feels that he conveys his meaning better by leaving them both 
and expressing a preference for the second, than he would do by 
striking out the first in favor of the second. Sometimes the 
adversative force of the δέ in this phrase is so slight that we can 
only express it in English by an inflection of the voice; sometimes 
it is strong enough to bear a ‘‘but;”’ but in all cases the two clauses 
together are clearer or stronger than the second would be alone. 
In the sentence, “Steal no more, but rather labor” (Eph. 4:28), 
the labor does displace the stealing, but the charge to labor does 
not displace, but only intensifies, the charge not tosteal. Examples 
like the following could just as well be taken from English litera- 
ture, for they illustrate not a peculiar Greek phrase but the work- 
ing of the human mind. ‘It is Christ Jesus that died, nay rather 
that was raised from the dead” (Rom. 8:34); “Now that ye have 
come to know God, or rather to be known by God” (Gal. 4:9) ; 
“Those who were formerly despised and near to Hades, or rather 
had entered it” (III Macc., 6:31); “As slaves, or rather traitors” 
(III Macc., 7:5); “Pharaoh appointed Joseph successor of his 
kingdom, or rather king” (Philo, De Josepho, 21); ‘The stars 
are said to be . . . . intelligent living beings, or rather each one 
is intellect itself” (De opif. mundi, 24). In such examples the 
value of the first clause is evident. It is usually the more familiar, 
the more easily understood, and even the more literally correct 
form; while the second is newer, more striking and bold, giving 
a peculiar force to a certain phase of the thought, never simply 


28 See further II Macc., 6:23; Eph. 5:11; I Cor. 14:1,5; Acts 5:13, 14. 


2a PRE-EXISTENCE OF SoUL IN Book oF WISDOM 


displacing the first, and not necessarily more correct. In many 
instances the second expression could not stand alone, but depends 
on its contrast to the first for its meaning. All this is almost too 
simple, and calls for an apology. But in the passage before us it 
is the habit of commentators to take the second clause apart from 
the first, and to make it alone support the great doctrine of the 
pre-existence of the soul. Farrar, for example, says that vs. 19 
is ‘‘an expression on which we need not dwell, because the writer 
proceeds, in the next clause, to correct it, and to intimate the view 
which he took of the relations between the soul and the body.” 
Can we now follow the process of the writer’s mind as he wrote 
the two clauses, and left them both standing? What he wanted 
to say was simply that Solomon was one of the favored men who 
possessed beauty and health and purity of body and also native 
goodness of character. The writer is a Jew writing Greek; and 
when he uses σῶμα and ψυχή for the two parts of human nature 
he inevitably thinks of man somewhat more dualistically than he 
would have done had he been writing Hebrew. But he is still a 
Jew, and man still consists, in his thought, in the union of these 
two parts, and not in either one alone. When, then, he wishes to 
explain that this child, Solomon, was εὐφυής in both parts of his 
being, the first way that occurs to him of expanding the bare 
statement is to say that he got by divine allotment a good soul. 
He is thinking of the body formed in the womb as if it were the 
person, and of the soul as chosen by God from his treasury of 
souls and breathed into the growing embryo, or into the child at 
birth. God fortunately allotted, or graciously chose, for Solomon 
a good soul. Then it occurs to him that it would be better to 
connect the personality with the soul, and to say that the body 
was happily matched to the soul, rather than that the soul was 
matched to the body. So he adds, “Or rather, being good, I 
came into a pure body.” I think he would hardly have ventured 
to say what Grimm thinks would have made his thought clearer, 
“Being a good soul, etc.’ He does not expressly connect the 
man with the body in the first clause, nor with the soul in the 
second. The man, the “I,” got a good soul, or rather entered a 
good body. He prefers to bring the ‘“‘I”’ into close relation with 


FRANK CHAMBERLIN PORTER 223 


the soul, but he does not so far identify them that he cares to take 
back the expression, “I obtained a good soul.” The birth of a 
man is the coming together of body and soul, and the man is 
most favored by nature who has a soul natively good, united to a 
body natively pure. It is almost, even though not quite, a matter 
of indifference to the writer whether this union is described by 
saying that the man (as if he were first a body, or were with the 
body) obtained the soul, or that the man (as if he were first a 
soul, or were with the soul) entered the body. That he hesitates 
between the two expressions, and that he leaves the first unerased, 
is entirely inconceivable if he had a fully developed doctrine of 
the pre-existence of the soul, such as is now uniformly ascribed 
to him. That he leaves the first clause standing is conceivable 
only on the supposition that it expressed his thought naturally 
and well and in the familiar way, but that a newer, more striking 
way of looking at and expressing the same thing comes into his 
mind, and that he ventures to set it over against the other. The 
fact that he leaves the first clause as it is, presents, as it seems to 
me, positive proof that no such doctrine of the pre-existence of 
the soul as that of Plato or Philo was in his mind. The birth 
of Solomon was the coming together of a good soul and a pure 
body. Did not the soul, then, exist and have a certain character 
before it came into a body? Yes, but only in a sense comparable 
to that in which the body existed and had a certain character 
before it received a soul. If we ask without presupposition what 
sort of prenatal existence is implied in the two verses taken 
together, I think we must say that the suggestion of vs. 19 is 
that God has made and has in keeping souls for all men who are 
to be born, and allots one to each new child. Then vs. 20, not 
contradicting the suggestion of vs. 19, modifies it by taking a 
tentative step in the direction of connecting the person with the 
soul instead of with the body. God provides a soul for the body, 
or rather a body for the soul. One can use either expression, for 
it is not the man himself that pre-exists, but only the two parts 
that are to make the man. 

What has already been said of the Jewish idea of the pre- 
existence of the body and of the soul is sufficient to indicate that 


224 PRE-EXISTENCE OF SouL IN Book oF WISDOM 


this interpretation of 8:19, 20, though it separates the writer of 
Wisdom at this point from Philo, does not set him apart in isola- 
tion from such movements of thought in his time as would 
naturally influence him. It does not attribute to him an anoma- 
lous position, but simply reveals the fact that he is still more Jew 
than Greek. When Jews began to speak Greek, and called the 
two parts of man σῶμα and ψυχή, they would naturally use Ψυχή 
of that which God breathed into man, the neshamah or ruah, 
and then the thought would be within easy reach that the person- 
ality, the “‘I,’’ might associate itself as well with that part of the 
future man which comes from above as with the part which comes 
from below. Now it seems to me that in the Book of Wisdom 
we are at just such a point, and that 8:19, 20 is a significant 
landmark in this development of thought. This writer first and 
more naturally thinks of the body as that pre-existing part of man 
with which the personal pronoun could connect itself; but then 
he thinks of the ψυχή, the other part of the coming man, that 
which God breathes into him or lends to him,” as better deserv- 
ing to be called “I.” The significance of this tentative and 
partial connection of the personality with the ψυχή for the 
author’s doctrine of immortality will be discussed later on. But 
it would be a great mistake to suppose that one who stands at this 
transitional stage, and has made only such a start toward identi- 
fying the person with the ψυχή as 8:19, 20 indicates, has adopted 
Platonism, or anything remotely resembling it. He does not hold 
to what we should call a real pre-existence of man at all. We 
are not to forget vs. 19. The writer is still more at home with 
the idea of a pre-existing body than with that of a pre-existing 
soul; and granting that both in a sense pre-exist, man is still to 
him neither one nor the other, but the union of the two. Neither 
Plato nor Philo could have written either of these verses; not vs. 
19, because it seems to connect the person with the body; not vs. 
20, because it implies that there is such a thing as a pure body, 
a fit abode for a good soul. 

In 7:1-6 the origin of man is described in detail, the origin 
of the same man, Solomon, as in 8:19, 20, narrated with the same 


29 See the discussion of 15:8, 11,16; 16:14 below. 


FRANK CHAMBERLIN PORTER 225 


purpose, that of showing that, however he may have excelled 
other men in endowment, he was like all men in nature, and 
gained his pre-eminent wisdom, not by peculiar native talents, 
but only, as every man must gain it, by prayer and as a gift from 
God. Man is here described wholly from the point of view of 
his body. He is mortal, earth-born and related to earth, molded 
as σάρξ in the womb; while that which comes from heaven into 
man is no part of his original nature, but the ‘‘spirit of wisdom,” 
which is given in answer to prayer, and secures for men friend- 
ship with God. There is hardly room here for the idea of a 
descent of the soul into a human body, bringing with it some 
memory of its native region. The movement is upward by divine 
help, from mortality and earthliness toward God, not downward 
from nearness to God, through some degrading impulse, into 
earthly life. 
The origin of man is described again in 15:11, in dependence 

on Gen. 2:7. Of the idol-maker it is said: 

ἠγνόησεν τὸν πλάσαντα αὐτὸν 

καὶ τὸν ἐμπνεύσαντα αὐτῷ ψυχὴν ἐνεργοῦσαν 

καὶ ἐμφυσήσαντα πνεῦμα ζωτικόν. 
The last two lines are quite certainly identical in meaning. The 
verbs are synonymous, the descriptive attributes are not distinc- 
tive, and between the nouns themselves, ψυχή and πνεῦμα, the 
author seems in this connection to have made no clear discrimi- 
nation (cf. 15:8, 16; 16:14). The πνοὴ ζωῆς which, according 
to Gen. 2:7, God breathed into man, and the ψυχὴ ζῶσα which 
man became, are not here kept apart. The ψυχή or πνεῦμα of 
man is what God breathes into him, and is first of all vitality, life 
itself. At death man returns to the earth from which he was 
taken, τὸ τῆς ψυχῆς ἀπαιτηθεὶς χρέος (15:8). The ψυχή, then, 
does not fully belong to man. The earth is his native element. 
The ψυχή is a loan from God, and at death the debt is paid. The 
man returns to earth and his soul is taken back by God. This is 
obviously Jewish and nothing else. It agrees with 8:19, but not 
with 8:20; that is, man is not a soul that enters a body, but a 
body, formed of earth, growing in the womb (7:1 ff.), to which a 
soul is allotted, or lent. So in 15:16 man is one who has 


2206 PRE-EXISTENCE OF SouL IN Book oF WISDOM 


borrowed his spirit (τὸ πνεῦμα δεδανισμένος). Again, alluding to 
God’s healing by means of the brazen serpent, the writer says 
(after I Sam. 2:6, etc.), that only God can both slay and make 
alive. Man can slay, ἐξελθὸν δὲ πνεῦμα οὐκ ἀναστρέφει, οὐδὲ ava- 
λύει ψυχὴν παραλημφθεῖσαν; that is, he cannot turn back [into 
the one whom he has slain] the spirit that has gone forth, nor 
can he release a soul that has been received, or taken possession 
of [by God] (16:14). Grimm supplies εἰς déov, but it is more 
probable that the idea in the author’s mind is still the same as in 
15:8, 16; moreover he nowhere says that the ψυχή goes to 
Hades—another indication that he is more Jew than Greek. 
The soul is taken back at death by God, and man cannot 
recover it. 

But to all that has been argued thus far it will of course be 
objected that in 9:15 and 11:17 we have ideas unmistakably 
Platonic, and that if these verses reveal the author’s knowledge 
and acceptance of the Platonic dualism, it is right to assume that 
8:20 is also Platonic, and if 8:20, then 1:4. 

Solomon’s prayer for wisdom (9:1—18) confesses that, though 
man was made for dominion and for righteousness, yet he is at best 
weak and short-lived and lacking in understanding, so that even 
one who is perfect as a man is to be reckoned as nothing unless 
he have the wisdom that comes from God. The necessity of this 
divine help is enlarged upon in vss. 13-18, chiefly in the language 
and spirit of the Old Testament ;" but in vs. 15 a ground of man’s 
limited powers of knowledge is found in his body. Because of 
its weight and burden the mind of man can know earthly things 
but imperfectly, and heavenly things not at all unless God sends 
his holy spirit. This, however, God does send, in answer to 
prayer, and a sufficient and saving knowledge of God is therefore 
within every one’s reach. The ‘‘corruptible body” or ‘‘earthly 
tent” (cf. Isa. 38:12; Job 4:19)” is an explanation, not of the sin, 
but of the ignorance of man. This is the prayer of a perfect man, 


30 Cf. Eccles. 8:8. 
31 Compare, 6. g., Isa. 40:13, 14; Jer. 23:18a; Job 15:8; 28: 20-22; 36:22; Strach, 42:21. 
32 Σκῆνος had almost lost its figurative sense and become practically a synonym of 


σῶμα. See illustrations of this use in Heinrici, Das Zweite Sendschreiben des Paulus an 
die Korinther, p. 241. 


FRANK CHAMBERLIN PORTER R27 


one in whom a good soul is united with an undefiled body. It is 
not therefore the impurity of the body, whether ritual or moral, 
that is in mind, but its mortality. The thought is the same as 
that of 7:1-6 and 9:5. The verse reads: 

φθαρτὸν yap σῶμα βαρύνει ψυχήν, 

καὶ βρίθει τὸ γεῶδες σκῆνος νοῦν πολυφρόντιδα. 
That the language is Platonic is not to be questioned; whether 
the thought is Platonic, the author himself should be allowed to 
decide. The sentence in the Phaedo (81 C) on which the verse 
is commonly thought to depend runs as follows: 

᾿Εμβριθὲς δέ ye τοῦτο [τὸ σωματοειδὲς ] ὁ οἴεσθαι χρὴ εἶναι Kai βαρὺ Kat 

γεῶδες καὶ ὁρατόν: ὃ δὴ καὶ ἔχουσα ἡ τοιαύτη ψυχὴ βαρύνεταί τε καὶ ἕλκεται 
πάλιν εἰς τὸν ὁρατὸν τόπον, κ. τ. A. 


The common or related words in the two passages are: 


Wisdom Plato 
1. ῥρίθει ἐμβριθές 
2. τὸ γεῶδες σκῆνος γεῶδες 
3. βαρύνει ψυχήν βαρύ and ἡ ψυχὴ βαρύνεται. 


Grimm hesitates to affirm direct literary dependence, but E. 
Pfleiderer* and Menzel® think this certain. 

Plato is speaking here, not of the hindrance that the body 
offers to the mind in its search for truth, but of the lot after 
death of souls which have been defiled by the body during the 
earthly life. Such souls, he says, have, through constant occupa- 
tion with the body, taken something corporeal into themselves; 
and this corporeal element which the soul has absorbed, not the 
body itself —7o0 σωματοειδές, not τὸ c@“a—we must think to be 
burdensome, and heavy, and earthy, and visible, so that such a 
soul is weighed down and dragged back to the visible region. 
Hence such a soul may sometimes even be seen at its tomb 
because of the body-like element that it has taken with it from 
its life with the body. After such wanderings it must be again 
imprisoned in a body, perhaps that of some animal most fitting 
its character. The connection of our verse with this passage 


33 Not τὸ σῶμα, which Grimm and others supply. 
34 Op. cit., pp. 295f. 35 Op. cit., p. 61. 


228 PRE-EXISTENCE OF SouL IN Book oF WISDOM 


in Plato is therefore purely one of words and not at all one of 
thought, a fact which commentators do not seem to have regarded 
as important. But if our author had the Phaedo before him he 
could easily have found striking expressions of a thought at least 
in form closely like the one he has in mind, namely, that the body 
stands in the soul’s way in its effort to gain wisdom,” instead of 
fixing upon a passage which has an entirely different meaning, 
and has nothing whatever to do with this thought. That it is 
remotely through the influence of this passage in Plato that the 
words ἐμβριθές, γεῶδες, βαρύνω, became associated as expressing 
the relation of body to soul is not impossible. But that the writer 
of Wisdom selected them from Plato and made the application 
(expressing a Platonic thought in Platonic language which Plato 
used to express an entirely different thought) isimprobable. The 
improbability will not lessen when we find that one so deeply 
concerned as our author is with the subject of immortality shows 
in all that he says about it not the slightest trace of the influence 
of the Phaedo, though this was the greatest book on the subject 
which the world had up to his time produced. Both in concep- 
tion and in argument he follows a wholly different and unrelated 
course. But our immediate concern is with the question whether 
the thought of 9:15 is really Platonic, or not. Our author thinks 
of a body free from impurity as hindering the mind merely by 
the limitations of finiteness and mortality, while Plato regards 
the body as the seat of passions, of evil appetites, desires, and 
fears, which obscure the soul’s natural vision of truth by a morally 
degrading and corrupting influence. In the Phaedo the only way 
in which the soul can see things as they are is by freeing itself 
as much as possible from the body. Indeed, it is only after actual 
death, which consists in the separation of body and soul, that the 
soul can fully gain truth. But the Book of Wisdom contains no 
such ascetic doctrine, and suggests absolutely no ascetic practice. 
The verse before us describes an inevitable fact about man. Τί 
does not find a moral cause of this fact in some sin or defect of 
the soul which brought it into the body, nor in the inevitable evil 
of the body as matter; nor does it seek escape by the moral effort 


36 See, 6. g., Phaedo, 66, 67. 


FRANK CHAMBERLIN PORTER 229 


of suppressing the body, by the practice of dying. Neither is the 
body man’s fault, nor is its burden to be removed by his effort. 
It is natural and indispensable to man, and belongs to the best of 
men. It is not an insurmountable barrier in the way of wisdom, 
for there is an open path by which wisdom can be gained here 
and now. The way is not escape from the body as from a prison 
or grave, but the coming into body and soul (1:4) of the divine 
spirit of wisdom. Our author’s positive injunction could only be 
to keep body and soul alike pure, since only on this condition can 
the prayer for the divine wisdom be granted (1:4). The man in 
whose person our author speaks gained wisdom in this way, 
through prayer and by the gift from above. He possessed a 
pure body, and when he asked for wisdom he received with it 
all good things of the bodily life, health and comeliness, riches, 
power, and honor (7:11; cf. vss. 8-10).” Our author knew how 
to idealize the Solomon of biblical history, but even he would 
hardly have chosen this hero if his own ideal had been that of 
asceticism. The book is full of the spirit of confidence and 
exultation in the actual possession of wisdom.* This verse, 9:15, 
can therefore only mean that wisdom must be sought from God, 
and cannot be gained by man’s unaided effort. But this is not a 
Platonic dualism; it is Jewish religion, expressing itself first in 
Scripture form (9:13), then in certain Platonic phrases which 
the author had caught from the popular philosophical teaching 
of his day. Such a literary use of current phraseology, derived 
from a different world-view from one’s own, is not unnatural. This 
verse does not, then, compel us to admit a dualism which 1:4 and 
8:19, 20 exclude. It neither compels nor permits us to attribute 
to our author “the Platonic conception of a pre-existence of souls 
and a banishing of them into earthly bodies because of a pretem- 
poral fall.” 

What has been said of 9:15 applies even more obviously to 
11:17. The verse contains a Platonic phrase, but not a Platonic 
thought. The phrase ἄμορφος ὕλη arose among Platonists, 
Aristotle being the first to use ὕλη in this sense. Plato had 


37 In accordance with I Kings 3:5-14. 39 Zockler, Die Apokryphen, p. 5. 
38 See, e. g., 6:22—7:14; 7:15-21; 8:2 ff. 


280 PRE-EXISTENCE OF SouL IN Book ΟΕ WISDOM 


used ἄμορφος" of the world-stuff, and the phrase ὕλη ἄμορφος 
was used by Stoics and by Philo." The Stoic use indicates that 
it did not necessarily carry dualistic implications with it, and our 
further study will make it probable that it was from the popular 
Stoicism of his time, rather than from Platonism, that our author 
took the phrase. That God made the world out of formless 
matter was not indeed a Hebrew conception; but the question 
that concerns us is whether to our author, as to Philo, the matter 
of which God made the world was evil and a cause of evil; and 
to this we may return a confident negative. In the material 
world as God made it only wholesome powers are operative (1:14). 
That God created the world of formless matter is an evidence only 
of his greater power, and it is only to illustrate and magnify his 
power that it is mentioned. God’s creation is altogether good. 
It is only man whose sin brings evil into it, and his sin is nowhere 
traced to the matter of which his body is formed. 

One verse which Grimm interprets in a Platonic direction we 
need not discuss in detail, since it is generally agreed that his 
rendering is mistaken. In 8:21 he rendered the word ἐγκρατής 
by enthaltsam (as in Strach, 26:15), whereas it must certainly 
be translated “possessed of,’ ‘‘master of’? (as in Sirach, 6:27; 
15:1; Bar. 4:1), supplying σοφίας from vs. 18, vss. 19, 20 being 
parenthetical. Grimm’s inference that we have here the Alexan- 
drian principle that the greatest. possible freeing of oneself from 
the body is the foundation of virtue and the condition of the 
elevation of the spirit to the supersensible realm, is baseless. This 
is indeed the view that necessarily results from the dualistic theory 
of Plato and Philo, and is strenuously urged by them. The fact 
that it appears neither here nor elsewhere in the Book of Wisdom 
surely confirms us in our belief that its author did not accept the 
dualistic theory. 

It must already be evident that our writer’s view of the world 
should not be inferred from two or three isolated sentences, but 
rather that these sentences should be interpreted in the light of 
his general view. To this we must therefore now give some atten- 
tion. The Platonic or Philonic doctrine of the pre-existence of 


40 Timaeus, 51 A, 41See Grimm on Wisdom 11:17. 


FRANK CHAMBERLIN PORTER 231 


the soul, which is commonly attributed to our author, is a part of 
a certain philosophy and psychology. Its presence is indicated 
by causes and effects especially in three directions. It belongs, 
in the first place, to a dualistic conception of the universe, in which 
the ruling contrast is that between matter and spirit, and in man 
between body and soul. In the next place, evil in this universe 
is due to matter, and sin in man to the body. Sin is to be con- 
quered by a war against the body and by separation from the 
world, by anticipating that freedom of the soul from the body 
which only actual death can fully effect. Finally, to the pre-exist- 
ence of the soul corresponds its immortality. That which comes 
into the body as a foreign being is not involved in the body’s 
death. The bodily existence appears as an interruption of the 
soul’s normal life. We must therefore test our thesis that there 
is no Platonic doctrine of pre-existence in the Book of Wisdom by 
asking whether the grounds and results of such a doctrine are to be 
seen here, as they clearly are in Philo, in these three directions. 

The writer’s general view of the world is set forth in his con- 
ception of Wisdom. This is the most philosophical idea that the 
book contains, and the one most affected by Greek influence. But 
this conception, rooted in the native soil of Jewish monotheism, 
branches out, not in the direction of Platonic dualism, but in that 
of Stoic monism. The most philosophical and the most Hellenic 
passage in the book is 7:22—-8:1; and here, as in related pas- 
sages (1:7; 12:1), it is not the Platonic doctrine of Ideas, but 
the Stoic conception of the World Soul that contributes to its 
development. Even here, however, the writer remains more Jew 
than Greek.” Wisdom, which is once called Power (1:3) and 
several times Spirit, is the agency through which God made and 
maintains the universe, rules human history for the ends of 
righteousness and love, and imparts to individuals knowledge, 
friendship with himself, virtue and immortality. There is 
undoubtedly a certain want of adjustment between the physical 
and the ethical qualities and functions of Wisdom, but the author’s 
purpose to make it a unifying conception is unmistakable. Asa 


42 The doctrine of Wisdom is expounded in 1:1-7; 6: 12-25; chaps. 7—9 (especially 7:22— 
8:1); chaps. 10—11:1; οἵ, 12:1. 


232 PRE-EXISTENCE OF SouL IN Book oF WISDOM 


semi-physical substance and energy it fills the world, making and 
holding together all things; while as the pure image and outflow 
of the goodness of God, it refuses to dwell in unrighteous men. 
Regarded as the immanence of God in the creation, it is described 
as an all-penetrating, all-moving, all-renewing energy, various yet 
one, mobile yet steadfast. Regarded as God’s self-revelation and 
self-communication to men, it is characterized by moral qualities — 
righteousness, purity, and especially love. In both aspects Wisdom 
is the image of God; in one, of his power; in the other, of his 
goodness. In one view it penetrates all spirits, in the other it 
enters only into holy souls. No doubt the writer, though more 
Hebrew than Stoic, takes the physical aspects and activities of 
the Wisdom Spirit seriously. It literally fills and makes and 
rules all things (1:7; 7:22ff.; 12:1). The formless matter of 
which God made the world he evidently conceives of as wholly 
penetrated and ordered and mastered by this Spirit. There is no 
hint that matter presents an obstacle to this creative energy of God, 
or produces any defect in the creation. The divine declaration 
that the world is very good is accepted without reserve (1:14), 
and demonstrated with enthusiasm. Only one thing stands 
opposed to this Spirit of God, and that is not matter, even in 9:15, 
and not the devil, in spite of 2:24, but always and everywhere the 
sin of man. Death, which is the author’s summary word for all 
evil does not belong to God’s purpose, and was not made by him.“ 
Wicked men brought it upon them by their own deeds and choice 
(1:12-16; 2:23, 24). Nothing else excludes the presence or 
limits the potency of this divine Wisdom except the evil thoughts 
and deeds of man. Death is the only evil thing in the universe, 
and sin is the only cause of its presence. 

Wisdom, as the artificer of all things, knows and can reveal the 
mysteries of the physical universe (7:17-22a); but these, which 
occupy so large a place in books like Hnoch, our author does not 
care to unfold. His interests are chiefly to set forth Wisdom as 
the way of personal salvation (1:1—-7; chaps. 6-9), and to prove 
that it orders human life justly and with loving care for men 
(chaps. 10-19). It would lead us too far to show in detail how 


43 Contrary to Sirach, 11:14; 33:14, 15; yet see 39:29; 40:9, 10, 


FRANK CHAMBERLIN PORTER 233 


eagerly the writer contends that there is no problem of evil, that 
all is well with the world, that even if not in seeming, yet always 
in reality, the forces of the world are working together to the 
ends of justice and goodness. In the last section of the book 
(chaps. 10-19) an effort is made to prove from sacred history 
that Wisdom in reality rules all things graciously (8:1), and that 
the creation itself fights on the side of God (5:17, 20ff.). The 
history of Israel, from Egypt to Canaan, exhibits the power, and 
especially the love, of God (11:21—12:2; 12:12-18, etc.). 
Through God’s all-pervading Spirit all things are ordered “by 
measure, and number, and weight” (11:20), in ideal fitness for 
moral ends. Men are punished in ways exactly fitting their sin 
(δι᾿ ὧν τις ἁμαρτάνει διὰ τούτων κολάζεται, 11:16). This principle 
is variously illustrated (12:24-27; 16:1; 18:4, 5), and is shown 
to be a principle of love even more than of justice. The righteous 
suffer only in obviously beneficent measure and manner (12:19-22; 
15:2; 11:8-10; 16:4-11; 18:20-25). The physical creation acts 
with God in blessing and in punishment, in such ways that even 
the very thing that afflicts the wicked benefits the righteous 
(16:1 ff., 15 ff.; 19:6, 18-21). Beyond question the general 
view of the book is the thorough goodness of the creation, and the 
complete subordination of nature to moral ends through the all- 
penetrating and ruling Spirit. Formless matter meets us nowhere 
but in 11:17, and it is clear that material elements and forces do 
not block the way or limit the power of the divine government, 
but marvelously assist and further it. Philo, also, maintained 
the goodness of the universe, but in his view its perfection is seri- 
ously impaired by the matter of which God made it. In the 
Book of Wisdom the ruling contrast is decidedly not between 
matter and spirit, or body and soul, but between righteousness 
and sin. 

What then of sin? What is its source, if not the “corruptible 
body” composed of ‘formless matter’??? Sin appears to be simply 
a man’s free choice of evil by which he renounces his true nature 
as a son of God and throws away his heritage of rulership and 
immortality.“ The nature and growth of sin are described in 


44 See 1:12, 16; compare 2:16-18; 2: 21-24; 9:2, 3; 6:3, 4, 20, 21. 


234 PRE-EXISTENCE OF SoUL IN Book or WISDOM 


connection with those types of incorrigible sinners, the Egyp- 
tians and the Canaanites. The plagues of the Egyptians and 
their destruction in the Red Sea, and the extermination of the 
Canaanites required justification as deeds of a God whose nature 
was distinguished above all by forgiving and saving love. The 
justification was found in the hopeless and final character of their 
wickedness. The sin of the Canaanites was especially heinous 
and deeply ingrained (12:3-6, 10, 11); yet the language that 
describes it contains no doctrine of original sin, nor any suggestion 
that either the devil or the material body was responsible for it. 
Even to them God gave room for repentance: οὐκ ἀγνοῶν ὅτι 
πονηρὰ ἡ γένεσις αὐτῶν καὶ ἔμφυτος ἡ κακία αὐτῶν, καὶ ὅτι οὐ μὴ 
ἀλλαγῇ ὁ λογισμὸς αὐτῶν εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, σπέρμα γὰρ ἦν κατηραμένον 
an’ ἀρχῆς (12:10b, 11a). The inference is that God’s forbear- 
ance toward these who were “due to death” (12:20), was only 
the greater proof of his strength (vss. 12-18), and that we, in 
imitation of God, ought to be lovers of men (vs. 19). 

The fundamental sin, in our author’s view, is not sensual pas- 
sion, but idolatry. Idolatry issues indeed in all sorts of immorali- 
ties, but its root is ignorance of God; and this again seems to be 
traced to some inherent perversity or dullness of the mind, rather 
than to the bodily nature. ‘Foolish were [ἦσαν must be sup- 
plied on account of the following παρῆν | all men by nature | φύσει], 
and ignorance of God was with them” (13:1). It is of course 
possible with Grimm to interpret φύσει by 9:15, as referring to 
the body; but we should surely have a right to expect some hint 
of this in the elaborate discussion that follows, and no such hint 
is given. The visible world is good, not evil (13:1), and it is 
because it is so good, because of the beauty and grandeur of 
created things, that men have stopped with these and failed to see 
that they revealed the greater beauty of their invisible author 
(13:1 ff.). For this men are partly excusable (vss. 6, 7), but 
partly at fault (vss. 8,9). The beauty of the world which should 
reveal God, is in fact a cause of idolatry. Another explanation of 
idolatry (14:12-21) traces it to images of a lost child, or of an 
absent ruler. These images are idealized, and finally worshiped. 
Then from this radical fault spring all sorts of immorality, at first 


FRANK CHAMBERLIN PORTER 235 


as a part of worship, and then as an all-dominating wickedness 
(14:22-31): ἡ yap τῶν ἀνωνύμων εἰδώλων θρησκεία παντὸς ἀρχὴ 
κακοῦ καὶ αἰτία καὶ πέρας ἐστίν (14:27). This is surely not the 
language of one to whom ὕλη or σῶμα is the beginning or principle 
and the cause of evil. That it is ignorance of God,* unbelief in 
him,“ with the resulting idolatry, that is the root of sin and evil 
is no less evident in chapters 1, 2, where the author describes the 
contemporary form of the ancient sins of Egyptians and Canaanites. 
The denial of God and of the unseen is the fundamental creed of 
the ungodly (2:1—5, 22), and sensuality and cruelty are its results 
(2:6-20). 

Here, however, we meet the famous sentence, ‘‘ By envy of the 
devil death entered into the world, and they experience it who 
belong to his part” (2:24). The language of this verse belongs 
to another type of dualism, not the Hellenistic, but that which we 
find especially in the apocalyptical books of Palestinian Judaism. 
The foreign relations of this sort of dualism, if we are to look for 
them at all, belong rather in the Persian than in the Greek world. 
But does our author adopt the views of this school or tendency 
when he falls in this single verse into its language? No one has 
ever urged that Satan or demons had an important place in our 
author’s theology. He has, in strict consistency, no room in his 
world for any divine being except God, or for any spirit except 
God’s one omnipresent and omnipotent Spirit of Wisdom. He 
nowhere connects idolatry with demons, a connection easy and 
often made; just as he nowhere connects immorality with the body. 
Idolatry, that primary sin, is due to ignorance of God, and immo- 
rality is the result of idolatry. Of course if the author had denied 
the existence of a devil he would hardly have written this verse, 
or would have allegorized the story of the fallas Philodoes. He 
touches for this once upon ideas capable of development into a 
pronounced dualism, and actually so developed by some Jews, but 
he does not adopt the dualism. The verse is of course a summary 
allusion to Genesis, chap. 3; but though it is the first definite 
identification of the serpent with the devil which we meet in Jewish 
literature, it is safe to affirm that our author was not the first to 


45 See 12:27; 13:1-9; 14:22; 15:11, 12; 16:16. 46’Amoretv, 1:2; 10:7; 12:17; 18:13. 


236 PRE-EXISTENCE OF SOUL IN Book oF WISDOM 


make the identification, for he has no special interest in it and 
makes no further use of it. It is quite evident that 2:23, 24 is 
exactly parallel in thought to 1:12-16. The fact that the devil 
tempted man belonged to the story as he had been taught to 
understand it, but does not explain or excuse man’s sin; and it is 
man’s sin alone which explains his death. Sin is the choice of 
death, and actually appears to be the cause that called it into 
being. The close likeness between the last lines of 1:16 and of 
2:24 deserves attention. Supplying the line of 1:15 which is 
wanting in the Greek, we obtain θάνατος as the reference of αὐτόν 
and ἐκείνου in 1:16. Death is personified, as Hades is in 1:14, 
where it is said that he has no palace (or crown, cf. 5:16) on 
earth. The ungodly make Death their friend, ὅτι ἄξιοί εἰσιν τῆς 
ἐκείνου μερίδος εἶναι. When now we compare this with 2:24, 
πειράζουσιν δὲ αὐτὸν [θάνατον] οἱ τῆς ἐκείνου [ διαβόλου] μερίδος 
ὄντες, our impression is that the devil is scarcely more than the 
personification of death. Certainly death is his proper realm and 
portion. Our author maintains his doctrine that the universe is 
altogether good and wholly filled with the divine Spirit by deny- 
ing that God made death (1:13; 2:23), and by denying its reality 
in the case of the righteous (3:1 f.). We may infer that a devil 
whose realm is dependent on sin, and manifests itself only in the 
self-destruction which sin brings upon itself, would be incapable 
of lifting himself up into serious rivalry with God, or becoming 
a menace to the author’s monism. His being and reign border 
close on the non-existent. Our writer’s mode of thinking made 
it quite possible for him to accept the reality of the devil of cur- 
rent thought and yet give him practically the value of a mere 
symbol of temptation and death. The distinction between the 
figurative and the literal in Jewish writing can seldom be made by 
a sharp line, and needs to be drawn with almost as much tact in 
the case of the writer of Wisdom as in that of Paul and the 
writer of the Fourth Gospel. It is of course possible to infer from 
this verse, 2:24, that the writer divided the universe between God 
and Satan; attributed sin and death, which God did not make, to 
Satan; and separated mankind into two classes, those who belong 
to God and those who belong to the devil. But as a matter of 


FRANK CHAMBERLIN PORTER Dit 


fact this is not his way of thinking. He expresses himself so 
explicitly as to God’s sole activity and universal presence and rule 
through the Spirit of Wisdom, and as to man’s sole responsibility 
for sin and death, that we confidently refuse to draw such infer- 
ences from a single verse, and because of it to class the book with 
Enoch, chaps. 1-36, and the Assumption of Moses. In just the 
same way we have seen how possible it is to infer from 9:15 that 
the writer adopted the Jewish Hellenistic type of dualism, divid- 
ing the universe between matter and spirit, making matter the 
source of evil, ascribing sin and death to the corruptible and 
defiling body, and regarding the soul as an immortal being tem- 
porarily imprisoned in the body. But the author in fact does not 
adopt and carry through this dualism any more than the other; 
and 9:15 is as isolated as 2:24. He expresses himself explicitly 
in regard to the nature of sin and death and the way of escape 
from sin and from mortality; and he does not locate sin in the 
body, nor attribute death to the body, nor prescribe a dying to 
the body as the way of salvation. There is in reality a close 
analogy between the two cases. There is quite as much ground 
for the former inference, which no one makes, as for the latter, 
which almost everyone accepts. I am bound to believe that the 
reason why the Hellenistic dualism is accepted as the doctrine of 
the book and the Palestinian (apocalyptical) dualism is rejected, 
lies not in anything in the book itself, but in the fact that it is a 
Greek book, and that in its conception of Wisdom it occupies a 
midway position between Proverbs, chap. 8, and the Logos of 
Philo. If 2:24 is a harmless use of current language which really 
says no more than 1:16, why should it be insisted that 9:15 must 
mean so much more than 9:5 and 7:1-6? In fact both passages 
illustrate this writer’s habit of adopting modes of expression that 
belong to views of the world and types of religion different from 
his own. In this he is not indeed so different from other men; 
but one who is not a systematic thinker, and who finds it every- 
where easy to slip into spiritualizing interpretations will go farther 
in this direction than others. 

But if neither in his general view of the world nor in his con- 
ception of sin and evil does our author prove to be a Platonist, 


298 PRE-EXISTENCE OF SOUL IN Book oF WISDOM 


does it not remain true that his doctrine of the immortality of the 
soul is Platonic and harmonizes with, if it does not actually require, 
his acceptance of the Platonic doctrine of the soul’s pre-existence ? 
If in our book the immortality of the soul takes the place of the 
Jewish doctrine of the resurrection, and is maintained in contrast 
to the corruptible nature of the body it would seem natural to 
infer that the writer accepted the Greek distinction of body and 
soul, and that the pre-existence and the immortality of the soul, 
were with him as with Plato and Philo, inseparable parts of one 
view of the nature of man. We have, therefore, to ask whether 
his conception of immortality is of the sort that implies pre-exist- 
ence, or agrees well with it, or at the very least permits it. 

We notice at the outset that the writer’s conception of immor- 
tality rests, as that of the rabbis did, primarily on Genesis, chaps. 
1-3. The story of creation and the fall is taken to mean that 
God made man for dominion and eternal life, and that sin is man’s 
free choice of death (Wisdom, 1:12-16; 2:23, 24). Not because 
in man a soul immortal by nature is united with a mortal body is 
the death of the body powerless to destroy the life of the soul; 
but because God, entering upon creation from the impulse of love 
(11:24-26), made man in his own image, is immortality man’s 
destined end. Only his sin shuts him off from the goal. The 
writer’s interpretation of the story of the fall shows his character- 
istic blending of the literal and the figurative. That he accepts 
the story as historical fact is a matter of course (2:24), but in 
effect the story means to him that each man who sins brings death 
upon himself, and that those who do not sin do not really die 
(1:12-16). Adam is not made responsible for the power of sin, 
nor for the reign of death. On the contrary, following a line of 
which Strach, 49:16 is our first witness, Adam is thought of as an 
example of righteousness (10:1, 2). According to the principle 
of 1:15; 3:1, 2, Adam did not die. His repentance must have 
saved him from death. Cain was the first one in reality to die; 
and we find almost the thought of Philo“ that Cain really killed 
himself, not his brother, because he killed the virtue in which 
true life consists (10:3). There is of course the literal sense in 


47 Quod det. potiori insid. soleat, 14. 


FRANK CHAMBERLIN PORTER 239 


which all men descended from Adam are mortal as he was (7:1), 
and all, good and bad, have the same lot in birth and death (7:6). 
But there is a reality in comparison with which this outward lot is 
only aseeming. The reality is that only sinners die. 

Next, then, to the dependence of the author’s doctrine of im- 
mortality on Genesis, chaps. 1-3, is to be put the resulting fact 
that his doctrine is not the immortality of the soul, but the immor- 
tality of righteousness and of righteous men. His text is: δικαιο- 
σύνη yap ἀθάνατός ἐστιν, injustitia autem mortis est acquisitio 
(1:15). With this our question might seem to be already answered. 
The immortality of righteousness is not the sort of immortality 
that involves a doctrine of the pre-existence of the soul. It is 
not the sort of immortality which the soul brings with it into the 
mortal body. It is the sort that man can gain by moral effort. 
This, however, does not excuse us from further study, for Plato and 
Philo also think that it is by philosophy that men are immor- 
talized. It is possible on the basis of Platonism, to think of the 
soul as indestructible, and yet use the word immortality of a 
blessed life of the soul in communion with God. 

Our next observation is that the doctrine of immortality is 
maintained in the Book of Wisdom in opposition to a definite 
denial of it by the “ungodly” (ἀσεβεῖς). They used in part the 
familiar arguments from appearances. Birth happens in an off- 
hand way; life is short; death is certain, and no one ever escaped 
it (2:1, 2a). But they added a theoretical argument based on 
the nature of the soul (2: 20, 3): The breath of life in man is 
as insubstantial as smoke. His reason (λόγος is a spark produced 
by the beating of the heart. When the spark goes out the body 
becomes ashes, and the spirit is dispersed like thin air (τό πνεῦμα 
διαχυθήσεται ws χαῦνος anp). Apart from these expressions the 
argument that death ends all is Hebraic in character, and is closely 
paralleled in Job and Strach,* and especially in Ecclesiastes.” 
The verses before us (2:26, 3) have in part Old Testament con- 
nections. Ecclesiastes 12:7 is reflected in vs. 3, but it is as clearly 
materialized here as it is spiritualized in IV Hzra, 7:78. The 


48 ἘΣ. g., Job7:7, 9; 14:10-12; 27:3; 34:14, 15; Sirach, 17: 28 (23); 38:21; 44:9. 
49See Grimm, p. 30, n. 3. 


240 PRE-EXISTENCE OF SouL IN Book ΟΕ WISDOM 


chapter depicts a degenerate type of Epicureanism, and vss. 2, 3 
contain a defense of it in the form of a popular materialistic theory 
of the soul, the roots of which are in Heraclitus and Zeno. Now 
it is a striking disclosure of our author’s point of view with refer- 
ence to immortality that, although he states the theory of his 
opponents that the soul is a product of bodily functions and hence 
ends with the body, he yet offers no theory of his own in reply. 
We should expect him at least to affirm, if not to argue, that the 
soul is not produced by bodily processes, but is independent of 
the body and not involved in its dissolution. But neither here 
nor anywhere in the book do we find an argument or even an 
assertion of this kind. In the Phaedo (70, 77, 78) the same 
theory is stated, that the soul is of the nature of air or smoke, 
and will be blown away and dissipated when removed from the 
body; and over against it the independent and indestructible 
nature of the soul is proved. But the author of Wisdom meets 
the assertion that death is due to the material nature of the soul 
only by the assertion that death is due to nothing but sin. He 
makes no effort to disconnect the soul from the body, or to find 
in the nature of the soul a ground for belief in its immortality. 
He draws out the crooked thoughts and wicked devices of his 
adversaries at length (2: 6-20; cf. 5:1-14). He finds the root 
of their fault in ignorance of God and the denial of his righteous 
rule and sure rewards (2:22). He does feel the need of affirming 
and proving the reality and universal presence of the Spirit of 
Wisdom in the world. The immortality in which he believes 
belongs primarily to this Spirit (12:1), and is imparted by it to 
men (6:17-21; 8:17; 15:3); but it does not belong to the nature 
of the soul. 

One is tempted to think that the author did not disprove the 
theory of 2:2, 8 because he accepted it as true for those who 
uttered it. These are the perverse thoughts that separate men 
from God (1:3), the words by which the ungodly call death to 
them (1:16). Their final lot, as they themselves confess, is in 
accordance not only with their desert but with their expectation 
(5:1-20). They expected to be as though they had never been 
(2:2), and this is in fact their end (5:9 ff.). Indeed in the 


FRANK CHAMBERLIN PORTER 241 


proper sense of the word they have never lived at all (5:13), for 
only righteousness is life. “The ungodly shall be requited even 
as they reasoned” (3:10). It shall be to them according to their 
faith. Their death illustrates that fitness of the penalty to the 
sin which characterizes the rule of the divine wisdom.“ The 
argument of the wicked that death ends all is their choice of death 
as their portion, and does not contradict the writer’s faith that 
immortality can be gained by righteousness. The only difference 
between them is that, while they think that it is their nature, he 
declares that it is their sinful choice that makes hopeless death 
their final lot. He offers, not a theory that the soul is immortal, 
but a way of escape from death, open to any who will enter it. 

Is it not, then, the soul in distinction from the body that he 
believes can attain immortality? This is neither to be affirmed 
nor denied hastily. It is really.a difficult question to answer with 
confidence. It is of course commonly affirmed. Schwally, for 
example, says that the book knows no resurrection, but only an 
immortality of the soul;” and cites 6:19; 1:15; 3:4; 15:3; 8:18, 
17, in proof of the statement that the phrase tas δὲ ψυχὰς ἀθανά- 
tous, which Josephus uses in describing Essene doctrine, applies 
to the Book of Wisdom. The passages cited contain the words 
ἀθανασία, ἀθάνατος, ἀφθαρσία, but not one of them contains the 
word Ψυχή, nor is this connection found anywhere else. These 
three words are fayorite and characteristic words of our author. 
They are used of the destination for which God made man (2:23); 
of the hope of the righteous (3:4) ; of that which Wisdom imparts 
to those who love and follow her (6:18, 19; 8:13, 17), that which 
belongs, together with righteousness, to the knowledge of God 
(15:3); of the memory of virtue (4:1; cf. 8:13); and ἄφθαρτος 
is applied to the Spirit of God and to the Law (12:1; 18:4). 
It is scarcely an accident that these words are never used of the 
soul. The omission would be strange in the case of one whose 
eschatology rested on the contrast between a mortal body and an 
immortal soul. The contrasted word θνητός is used of man (7:1; 


48 Compare M. Sanhedrin, X. 1: He who says that the resurrection of the dead is not to 
be derived from the Law has no part in the world tocome. That is, He who denies the resur- 
rection will not rise. 


49 Das Leben nach dem Tode, p. 180. 


242 PRE-EXISTENCE OF SouL IN Book ΟΕ WISDOM 


9:14; 15:17); φθαρτός of an idol (14:8), and, in the one verse 
whose rights we are testing (9:15), of the body. The question 
whether in this verse φθαρτὸν σῶμα implies the ἀφθαρτὸς ψυχή 
which we look for elsewhere in vain is precisely the question 
before us. 

The word ψυχή does occur in connection with the thought of 
the life after death in 2:22; 3:1, 18; 4:14; but the expressions 
used are not conclusive proof that immortality belongs to the soul 
apart from the body. The order of words in the phrases γέρας 
ψυχῶν ἀμώμων, δικαίων δὲ ψυχαί, κ. τ. λ., ἀρεστὴ yap ἦν Κυρίῳ ἡ 
ψυχὴ αὐτοῦ, shows that the emphasis is not on ψυχή, as if in con- 
trast to σῶμα, but on the characterizing words. It is the blame- 
less soul, the souls of righteous men, the God-pleasing soul, that 
gains the reward. It is the wages of holiness for which men 
should hope (2:22). The subject of the verbs in 3:2 ff., though 
in form ψυχαί, is certainly in the writer’s thought δίκαιοι." In 
4:14 it is clear that it is the man, not the soul, that is translated 
(cf. 4:10). Nor does any stress belong to ψυχῶν in the phrase 
ἐν ἐπισκοπῇ ψυχῶν (3:13; cf. 2:20; 3:7; 4:15). In all these 
passages the Old Testament meaning of nephesh, ‘person,’ is 
almost, if not quite, an adequate rendering of ψυχή. When it is 
asked, then, whether 9:15 does not imply the idea of an ἄφθαρτος 
ψυχή we have a right to hesitate. That this was the implication 
in the minds of those who first shaped the language of the verse, 
Plato and his successors, we have already fully acknowledged. 
That a Jew could adopt the language without this implication, 
Paul makes it easier for us to realize. Paul remained a Hebrew 
in his vigorous rejection of the Greek (Platonic) idea of the im- 
mortality of the incorporeal soul; yet he either quotes this very 
verse from Wisdom or says the same thing in similar language in 
a passage in which he is affirming resurrection in contrast to 
immortality (II Cor. 5:1-4). Unquestionably the opposite of 
φθαρτὸν σῶμα in Paul’s view is ἄφθαρτον σῶμα. He hoped for a 
body not corruptible and earthly, not burdening the soul, but 
fitted for its highest and best life. The right to compare the writer 
of Wisdom with Paul is wholly independent of the current opinion 


50 Compare 4:7 ff.; 5:15 f. 


FRANK CHAMBERLIN PORTER 248 


that Paul knew and used the book. In antecedents and training, 
and in their modes of thought, the two men are somewhat related 
to each other; and at more points than one each of them helps us 
to understand the other. According to Paul the ψυχή is not the 
immortal part of man. Body and soul must both be spiritualized 
if man is to attain immortality. In Wisdom 6:17-21 the succes- 
sive steps of the process of moral and religious discipline are 
traced by which man reaches the goal of immortality. Taking the 
passage in connection with others which speak of the indwelling 
of the Spirit of Wisdom in man (1:1-5; 7:27) we reach a con- 
ception not far from that of Paul, that it is the gift and indwelling 
of the divine Spirit that becomes in mortal man the power both 
of righteousness and of immortality (cf. 8:7, 17; 15:3). 

Lest it should be objected that Paul’s doctrine is solely the 
result of the resurrection of Christ and of the identification of the 
Spirit with him, it must be pointed out more fully how deeply our 
author’s doctrine of immortality is rooted in the Old Testament. 
His doctrine is that righteousness leads to life and sin to death; 
and stated in this way it is at once evident that it is essentially a 
Hebrew doctrine. We have already noticed one of the Old Testa- 
ment sources of our author’s doctrine of immortality, namely Gene- 
sis, chaps. 1-3." More than one inference could be drawn from the 
account of the fall. /It might be said that Adam’s sin brought 
death upon all his descendants, or that since all men have died, 
all must have sinned.” Our author adopts neither of these views, 
but denies that all men do in reality die. The righteous only 
seem to die, but are really translated into the presence of God 
(Sedu ih.) 

{That the word translation best expresses the process by which 
the righteous escape death is indicated by the writer’s use of a sec- 
ond Old Testament source of his doctrine, the story of Enoch. ) 
This also was capable of being variously applied. By the majority 
the fact was simply accepted that Enoch, Elijah, perhaps Moses and 
a few others,” never experienced death, but were transported to 


~ 


51 Especially Gen. 1: 26, 27 (cf. Ps. 8: 6-10) ; 1:31; 2:7, 17; 3:19. 
521V Ezra, 7:48; Rom. 5:12. 
53 See IV Ezra, 6:26; Syr. Apoc, Baruch, 13:5; 24:2; 25:1. 


244 PRE-EXISTENCE OF SouL IN Book oF WISDOM 


Paradise, where they are still living in the body. In this there 
was no element of hope for the average man, though such excep- 
tional cases enforced the thought of Genesis, chaps. 1-3, that man 
was made for immortality. But to our author Enoch’s translation 
is a type of the death of the righteous, and especially the vin- 
dication of God’s love and power in the case of their early death 
(4:7-19). According to this passage death is not preferred 
because it frees the soul from the burden of the body; it is not 
desired as the condition for the attainment of wisdom; but one 
who in youth has already attained that perfection in knowledge 
and character which is usually gained only by the discipline of a 
long life, having in the real sense reached old age while still young 
(4:8, 9, 13), may be taken out of this world that his virtue may 
not be harmed by the influence of evil men. His death is an ideal 
condemnation of those who live long and yet do not possess virtue 
(4:16). 

A third Old Testament source of our author’s doctrine is the 
often repeated faith of Law and Prophecy and Wisdom that life 
is for the righteous and death for the wicked.” Although the 
Psalms probably and the Proverbs certainly, contained no doctrine 
of a life after death, yet one who holds that doctrine can find 
abundant and satisfying expression of it in such passages as Psalms 
16:11, 12; 34: 21-23; 73: 23-26, and in the conception of life 
and death in Proverbs.” Here as, in the preceding instances, the 
question is one of interpretation. The original writers evidently 
meant by life, long and happy and honorable life, rich in the 
experience of the favor of God; and by death, premature and un- 
happy death, and the absence of what gives life its higher worth. 
Dillmann well says, 

Such sentences are not exhausted by saying that wisdom and piety 
keep men from untimely death, and that sin and folly cast men down in 
misfortune and early death. Although this is certainly meant, yet there 
lies in such words the further thought that there is a death apart from 


bodily death, and a life in spite of bodily death. The absolute contrast 
which exists for the common consciousness between temporal life and 


54 Lov. 18:5; Deut. 30:15-20; Jer. 21:8; Ezek. 20:11, 13; Strach, 15:17, etc. 
55 ἘΣ, g. 1:31, 32; 2:18, 19; 3:22; 4:4-22;5:5; 7:2, 26, 27; 9:18; 10:2; 11:4, 5, 7; 12:28; 13:14; 
14:27, 32; 15: 24, etc. 


FRANK CHAMBERLIN PORTER 245 


temporal death is removed. There is a higher, truly immortal life within 
the temporal life, for which even the terrors of death have lost their 
power. From this the step is not a long one to the knowledge of a life 
after death, although in Proverbs this is not expressly affirmed.” 


I quote the passage because it expresses quite exactly the 
position of the writer of Wisdom. He no doubt takes this last 
step, but he takes it from the ground gained in the Book of Prov- 
erbs, and not from any other line of approach; and for him the 
step seems—and is—a short one. Proverbs 8:35, 36 comes little 
short of being an adequate summary of our writer’s doctrine of 
immortality, and was almost certainly in his mind when he wrote 
1:11b, 12,16. It reads: αἱ yap ἔξοδοί μου ἔξοδοι ζωῆς, καὶ ἑτοι- 
μάζεται θέλησις παρὰ Κυρίου. οἱ δὲ εἰς ἐμὲ ἁμαρτάνοντες ἀσεβοῦσιν 
τὰς ἑαυτῶν ψυχάς, καὶ οἱ μισοῦντές με ἀγαπῶσιν θάνατον. The 
Greek language and atmosphere of the writer of Wisdom no doubt 
helped him to take such words of his Hebrew Scriptures in a more 
absolute sense than they were meant; but on the other hand his 
Hebrew instincts prevented him from taking the Greek phrases 
and conceptions which he adopted as literally as they were taken 
by Greeks. His doctrine of immortality is, in the end, far nearer 
to Proverbs 8:35, 36 than to Plato’s Phaedo; and among those 
more nearly contemporary his relationship, in my judgment, is 
much closer to Paul than to Philo. His doctrine is not the im- 
mortality of the soul because of its nature, but the immortality of 
the righteous because of the justice and grace of God, and through 
the power of his indwelling Spirit. 

Does this mean that in any sense comparable to the Pauline 
the Book of Wisdom teaches a doctrine of resurrection, rather 
than immortality? It is safe to say that one who admitted 9:15 
into his book did not believe in the resurrection of the physical 
body; but other Jews besides Paul held to a resurrection in which 
the body was not earthly and corruptible, but starlike or angelic in 
nature.” Our author’s language is anything but explicit. Sieg- 
fried confesses that immortality in this book vacillates between 
continued personal existence [3:1 ff.] and survival in the memory 
of posterity (8:13 [4:1]), or even the conception of an ideal 


56 Alttestamentliche Theologie, p. 399. 57 See Volz, Jtidische Eschatologie, pp. 358 ff. 


246 PRE-EXISTENCE OF SouL IN Book oF WISDOM 


communion of life with Wisdom (8:17 [15:3 ]) which the righteous 
enjoy in this earthly existence.” It should be added that his occa- 
sional use of Messianic language leaves us in final uncertainty 
whether he regarded the Messianic hope as a figure which found 
fulfilment in individual immortality, or as destined to be literally 
fulfilled on some definite future day of judgment. The destiny of 
the righteous to rulership, which is the essence of the Messianic 
hope, is a favorite conception of the writer’s. He repeats it from 
Genesis 1: 26, 28 (9:2, 3), and uses it to express the final goal of 
the righteous (3:7, 8; 5:15, 16; 6:20, 21; cf. 4:16; 5:1). In 
chap. 6 this rulership appears to be spiritualized. Kings who have 
misused their divinely given authority are instructed that true 
rulership can be gained only by the love and discipline of Wis- 
dom, and consists in an incorruption which brings men near to 
God. Whether this is a future or, as perhaps in 8:17; 15:3, a 
present eternal life is not certain. 

The principal Messianic passage in the book is 3:7, 8. The 
whole passage 3:1—9, might mean that the souls of the righteous, 
when they return to God at death, are kept in that only half personal 
state in which the rabbis, as we shall see, conceived of souls as 
waiting in the divine treasury for the coming resurrection. Rest 
and peace and nearness to God describe their condition (3:1-3). 
Then the time of their visitation would be the resurrection, which 
would restore them to full life and activity in their destined call- 
ing as rulers of the world (3:7—-9).” This may be the purpose for 
which the Lord safely kept them (4:17). If this is the writer’s 
forecast, then 5:1—-14 must describe the actual judgment of the 
wicked by the righteous. On the other hand it is at least equally 
probable that 3:7, 8 does not follow after 3:1-6 but is parallel 
with it, and merely asserts that their heavenly blessedness is the 
real fulfilment of the prophetic hopes for the righteous people. 
In that case 5:1-14 is only a dramatic counterpart to 2:1- 28. 
The figurative meaning seems more natural in 5:15, 16, for verse 
16 does not appear to follow after vs. 15 in time, but rather to 


58 Kautzsch’s Apokryphen, p. 930a. 


59Grimm interprets the passage as describing, first, the immortal blessedness of the 
righteous dead (vss. 1-6), and then the coming Messianic glory of the righteous who are 
still alive (vss. 7-9). 


~ 


FRANK CHAMBERLIN PoRTER 247 


unfold in the language of Messianic eschatology the blessedness 
and glory of the righteous with God. In the description of judg- 
ment that follows (5:17—23), in distinction from 3:7—8, they seem 
to have no part. The Messianic language of these passages may 
be one more instance of the author’s facility in appropriating terms 
that do not properly belong to his own way of thinking. 

What is clear is only that the writer looked forward to a com- 
plete overthrow and final destruction of the wicked and to an 
immortal life of the righteous with God. The effort to define 
details will always be baffled by the vagueness of his language 
and by the habit of his mind, in which the outward and literal 
and the inward and spiritual pass over by indefinite gradations one 
into the other. The final overthrow of the wicked seems to be on 
earth, and their destruction in Hades (4:18, 19; 4:21—5:14; 
5:17-23; 17:21). The end of the righteous seems to be the realiza- 
tion in communion with God in heaven of that life and dominion 
for which man was made. We are tempted to say, by the help of 
15:8, 11, 16; 10:18, 14, that the writer thinks of the righteous 
as going with their souls to God, and of the wicked as going with 
their bodies to the dust (2:3). But this is beyond the evidence 
and is probably too definite, or too theoretical, for such a mind. 
The one certainty in regard to the wicked is that they die. We 
get the truest impression not from the slight intimation that they 
are conscious of suffering after death (4:18, 19),” but from the 
heaping up of words declaring that they have utterly gone and left 
no trace behind (5:10-14). They fall by their own deeds into the 
hands of one who destroys both body and soul (cf. 1:11; 12:6). 
But while the wicked shall die, and indeed have never really 
lived (5:13), the righteous through their righteousness and by the 
gift of the Spirit live and shall live. 

The assumption that our author must have had a clear and 
consistent eschatology, and the effort to secure consistency and 
clearness either by rigorous interpretation or by literary analysis,” 


60 Compare Job 14:22. 

61The book has been declared composite of late by Wm. Weber, Zeitschrift fiir Wissen- 
schaftliche Theologie (1904), pp. 145 ff.; by Lincke, Samaria und seine Propheten (1903), 
pp. 119 ff., and by K. Kohler, Jewish Encyclopedia , art. *‘ Wisdom of Solomon.” The analy- 
ses do not agree, and the grounds are not convincing. 


248 PRE-EXISTENCE OF SouL IN Book ΟΕ WISDOM 


reveals a misunderstanding of the working of the Jewish mind in 
this region. Rohde” remarks that in the late period of Greek 
thought all the stages of development in regard to the continuance 
of the soul after the death of the body which had been reached in 
the course of time were present and valid at the same time, side 
by side. Much the same can be said of the Jewish eschatology, 
and the effort to obliterate this fact by literary analysis is largely 
a mistaken one. 

In spite, then, of remaining uncertainty at various points as to 
our author’s conception of the life after death and even on the 
crucial question whether he held to immortality of the soul or to 
some form of resurrection, it is, I believe, certain that his view, 
both in form and in spirit, is more Jewish than Greek. It is clear, 
if I am not quite mistaken, that his conception of immortality is 
not of the sort that requires the pre-existence of the soul as its 
pre-supposition. In fact it is hardly of such a character as would 
admit that doctrine by its side. Immortality is not connected 
with the divine breath which gives man life and constitutes his 
soul or spirit (15:8, etc.); it is conferred rather by that divine 
Spirit of Wisdom which the mature man gains by moral effort and 
by prayer. It is not man’s nature that decides whether he is to 
live or die, though the godless profess that it is (2:2, 3); it is 
his character. Immortality is at the same time man’s moral 
achievement and God’s gracious gift through his Spirit. 

Plato and Paul are the two greatest champions of faith in 
immortality, and represent the two great lines of argument, or 
ways of approach. Plato argues from the nature of the soul, Paul 
from the character and purposes and spiritual operations of God. 
What has just been said indicates that the ideas of the Book oy 
Wisdom on this subject are distinctly of the Pauline rather than 
of the Platonic type, and we are better justified in filling out the 
vacant places in his thought by a cautious use of Paul than by the 
use of Philo. The writer of Wisdom does not care for the philo- 
sophical or scientific questions: Is the soul immortal? Will the 
soul live on after the body dies? He is interested only in the 
religious questions: Will God save man from death? Can man 


62 Psyche, II, p. 379. 


FRANK CHAMBERLIN PORTER 249 


attain immortality? The only sort of death with which he is con- 
cerned is the death which sin causes, the sort of death which 
already is, wherever sin is. The wicked only seem to live. And 
the only sort of immortality he cares about is that which rewards 
righteousness, and is already possessed by those in whom because 
of their righteousness the Spirit of Wisdom dwells, making them 
friends of God. The righteous only seem to die. In kinship to 
Wisdom is immortality. 

My conclusion is that the Platonic doctrine of the pre-exist- 
ence of the soul is not found in the Book of Wisdom. It is not 
the natural meaning of the one verse which is thought to assert 
it (8:20); it is not sustained by the two Platonic phrases (9:15; 
11:17) which are adduced in its support; it has not its inevitable 
accompaniments, its roots and fruit, in the writer’s views as to the 
world in general, which so far as they are not Jewish are Stoic 
in character, nor in his conception of the origin and nature of sin, 
nor in his view of death and his doctrine of immortality. It is 
not asserted that the book contains no idea of the pre-existence of 
the soul. A certain sort of pre-existence is implied in 8:19, 20; 
15:8, 11,16; 16:14; but it is not the pre-existence of the person, 
the conscious moral self; itis not of the Greek, but of the Jewish, 
type. <A doctrine of the pre-existence of the soul of which no use 
is made to refute a current materialistic notion of the soul’s 
nature (2:2,3); with which the belief in immortality, though 
earnestly urged, stands in no relation; from which no theoretical 
or practical inferences are drawn in the direction of an ascetic 
suppression of the body; which has nothing to do with the theory 
of ideas; can surely not be called Platonic. 


II. THE RABBINICAL DOCTRINE OF THE PRE-EXISTENCE OF 
THE SOUL 


The limits of this essay do not permit a complete study of the 
conception of pre-existence in Jewish literature. In particular a 
critical study of Philo and Josephus cannot here be undertaken. 
There are, however, two reasons for bringing forward in some 
detail illustrations of rabbinical ideas on this subject. One is that 
the argument thus far has turned on a distinction between Jewish 


950  PRE-EXISTENCE OF SOUL IN RABBINICAL WRITINGS 


and Greek ideas of the soul; and on this and other subjects no 
literature is so well adapted as the rabbinic, to familiarize one with 
the ways of thinking characteristic of the Jewish mind. The 
other reason for introducing it is the currency here, as in the case 
of the Book of Wisdom, of what I must regard as a serious mis- 
conception. It is quite the accepted assumption of modern writers 
on Judaism that the pre-existence of the soul was a common doc- 
trine of the rabbis, and that they meant by it practically what 
Philo meant, or what we ourselves mean when we use the phrase. 
The proof that is generally offered for this assumption is a refer- 
ence to Weber’s Jiidische Theologie, pp. 212, 225 ff. I have else- 
where had occasion to criticize Weber’s too dualistic (Platonic) 
account of the rabbinical doctrine as to the seat of sin; and this 
criticism applies in part to his exposition of the doctrine of the 
pre-existence of the soul. I attempted to show that the rabbis 
did not adopt the Greek dualistic idea that the body is by nature, 
because made of matter, evil and the seat of the evil impulse, and 
that the soul is by nature pure and good, the seat of the good 
impulse. Their conception rather was that both good and evil 
propensities reside in the soul, or more strictly in the heart, the 
moral nature of man. The rabbis, in their doctrine of the yeger, 
have to do with simple moral facts and forces, and not with meta- 
physical theories. Now there is, I believe just a little evidence 
of Greek influence in the rabbinical doctrine of the pre-existence 
of the soul as in the doctrine of the yeger. 

The ideas of the rabbis as to the relations of soul and body 
rested on the old Hebrew conception of the nature of man, not on 
the new Greek dualistic psychology. They had indeed provided 
themselves in the word $3 with an equivalent for σῶμα; and, 
especially on the basis of Genesis 2:7, had adopted aw) as its 
usual antithesis. They were able, therefore, to distinguish more 
clearly than Old Testament speech allows between the two parts 
of human nature. But their conception was not so much that of 
contrasted substances as of opposite origins; not that the guph 
was made of matter and the neshamah of spirit, but that the guph 


63°*The Yeger Hara, a Study in the Jewish Doctrine of Sin,” Biblical and Semitic 
Studies (1901), pp. 93-156. 


FRANK CHAMBERLIN PORTER 251 


was from below, from the earth, and the neshamah from above, 
from God. The basis of their reflections on the relation of these 
two to each other and to the human personality is to be found not 
in scientific observations or in philosophical theory, but in a few 
often repeated texts of Scripture: first of all, Gen. 2:7; then as 
interpreting this, Isa. 57:16, with its suggestion that the life- 
giving breath of God is individualized, and that the individual 
“souls” are already made; I Sam. 25:29, furnishing the idea that 
God keeps the “souls” he has made, that is, the souls of the 
righteous, in a storehouse; then Job 12:10; Eccles. 3:21; 12:7, 
and a few other verses. The use made of such passages will 
appear from the quotations following. 

One of the most typical passages is the following morning 
prayer: 

When one awakes let him say, My God, the soul [77213] which thou 
hast given me is pure [770]. Thou hast formed it [ΠΧ] in me, and 
thou hast breathed it (AMM53] in me, and thou dost keep it within me 
["a7p2 9770]; and thou wilt hereafter take it from me, and thou wilt 
give Η back to me again in the [Messianic] future [N25 ony]. As long as 
my soul is within me I thank thee, O Lord my God, and the God of my 
fathers, ruler of all worlds and Lord of all souls. Blessed art thou who 
givest back souls to dead bodies [ΠΩ psp maw ΠΙΠΏΓΙ] 
(Berakoth, 606). 

This prayer, as it is used in the Jewish Prayer Book today, 
may be taken to express almost any form of belief in the divine 
origin and destiny of the soul which the worshipers may hold, as 
we use verses from the Psalms to express our own faith in a life 
after death. But when we ask what conception of the soul this 
prayer was originally intended to express, it is surely evident that 
no Platonic or modern idea of pre-existence was in the mind of 
those who first shaped and used it. It rests upon the conception 
of man contained in Gen. 2:7. The neshamah is not the person, 
but is here, as uniformly in the rabbinical sayings, spoken of as 
something distinct from the “I,” and objective to it. It is God’s 
gift to the person, formed, or breathed, and kept in man by God. 
It always belongs to God and remains in his keeping (Job 12:10). 
When, at death, God takes this “soul” back, it is not the man’s 
self that returns to the heavenly regions from which he came, but 


952. PRE-EXISTENCE OF SouL IN RABBINICAL WRITINGS 


only the divine breath that animated and preserved his body 
during his earthly life. Yet this divine breath is so far indi- 
vidualized and connected with this man that when the time comes 
for him to be raised from the dead, God will give back the same 
neshamah to the same body,* and the man himself, the same 
man, will live again. In the whole passage the human person is 
thought of from the point of view of the body, not from that of 
the neshamah; in other words, its standpoint is that of Wisdom 
8:19. Not only is it implied that the man’s personality did not 
belong to the “soul” in its pre-existent state, but it is equally 
clear that the person does not go with the “soul” when God takes 
it back at death. All that one can hope and pray for is that God 
will keep his ‘‘soul” for him during his slumber in the grave, and 
give it back to him, that is, raise him from the dead and give him 
life again, in the age to come. The neshamah is still primarily 
the “breath of life’ (Gen. 2:7). God is praised as the one who 
gives back “souls” to dead bodies; that is, as he gives souls to 
bodies that men may enter upon the earthly life, so will he do again 
that they may enter the new life of the Messianic age. The doctrine 
of resurrection which the passage contains is surely proof enough 
that we are in a Hebrew and not in a Greek world of thought. 

A man’s responsibility with reference to his soul is to return 
it to God pure as it came from him. On Eccles. 12:7, ‘‘and the 
ruah returns to God who gave it,” we read (Sabbath, 152b): 

What was given to you in purity, so give back to him in purity. Like 
a human king who divided royal garments among his servants. The wise 
folded them up and laid them in a chest; the fools did their work in them. 
After a time the king inquired after his garments. The wise gave them 
back to him clean, but the fools gave them back soiled. .... As to the 
wise, he ordered that their garments go into the treasure-house [ "3258 ], 
and that they themselves go to their homes in peace. As to the fools he 
ordered that their garments be sent to be cleaned, and that they go to 
prison. So says the Holy One as to the bodies of the righteous, “He 
enters into peace, they rest in their beds” (Isa. 57:2); and as to their 
souls, “They shall be bound in the bundle of life with Yahweh” (I Sam. 
25:29). As to the bodies of the wicked he says, ‘There is no peace to 


the wicked” (Isa. 48:22); and as to their souls, “And the souls of thine 
enemies shall he sling out,” etc. (I Sam. 25: 29). 


64 This marks an advance beyond the idea that underlies Ezek., chap. 37. 


FRANK CHAMBERLIN PORTER 253 


Remembering that this is strictly an allegory, not a parable, 
we notice how much more closely the man himself is associated 
with the body than with the soul. It is not the body, as we should 
expect, that is likened to a garment worn by the soul during the 
earthly life; but the soul is the garment lent to man by God during 
the earthly life, and at death, if it has not been defiled, it goes back 
into God’s treasury, while the good man himself is thought of as 
resting with his body in the tomb. 

We read on in Sabbath, 152b: R. Eliezer says: The souls of 
the righteous are kept [M133] under the throne of glory, but the 
souls of the wicked are slung back and forth (I Sam. 25:29). 
A similar saying is ascribed to R. Eliezer ben Jose ha-Gelili in 
Sifre, Num., § 139: The soul, as long as a man lives, is kept in 
the hand of the Creator (Job 12:10), and after death is taken to 
the treasure-house (I Sam. 25:29). But this [as the verse shows | 
is true only of the souls of the righteous. So Jose b. Halaphta 
interpreted the two phrases in Eccles. 3:21 of ‘‘the souls of the 
righteous which are kept in the divine treasury (I Sam. 25:29), 
and the souls of the wicked which descend into Sheol (Ezek. 
ΞΕ 5." 5 

According to R. Meir” the place where souls are kept, both 
before and after their earthly life, is in the highest heaven, the 
seventh, with those things that are nearest to God. Here are the 
souls of the righteous [4684], according to I Sam. 25:29, and also 
the spirits and souls which are yet to be created [ὩΣ NINN 
MIN ay Tnyw) (Isa. 57:16). Here is also the dew with which 
God will hereafter awaken the dead (Ps. 68:10 [cf. Isa. 26:19] )— 
a striking indication that the righteous dead have not reached 
their consummation when their ‘‘souls” have been received back 
into the presence of God. It is not they themselves that live there 
in the seventh heaven, but only their “souls.” They are there 
after death only in the same impersonal or partial sense in which 
they were there before birth. Their real life and blessedness will 
not begin until God gives them back their souls again. 


65 Compare IV Ezra 1:80. 66 Koheleth rabba, on 3:21. 


67 Hagigah, 12b. For the attribution of this view to Meir, see Bacher, Tannaiten, II, 
65; cf. Aboth d. R. Nathan, 37, 9. 


οὔά ῬΕΕ-ΕΧΙΞΤΕΝΟΒ OF SouL IN RABBINICAL WRITINGS 


The souls of all men are first in heaven, because all men are 
created by God, but only the souls of the righteous are in heaven 
after death, because only the righteous are to be raised from the 
dead.® When God puts souls back into their sheaths [i. e., in the 
resurrection |, he will not put the souls of the wicked into their 
sheaths [i.e., they will not rise from the dead |." 

But if the neshamah is not the man’s self, but only one half 
of the man that is to be created, what is the significance of its 
pre-existence in the divine treasury, in the highest heaven, in 
nearness to God? It signifies first of all that the breath of life 
is God’s gift to man, and that while one part of his nature is from 
below, the other is from above. But it means further that God 
has planned and fixed the number and lot of human beings. The 
souls kept in the divine chambers picture to the imagination the 
divine predestination of the life of all men and of each man. The 
pre-existence of the soul is more significant for the conception of 
God than for the conception of man; not the nature of the soul 
but the power of God is heightened by it; that is, it is Jewish, 
not Greek, in value. The life and lot of the soul both now and 
hereafter depend not on its natural constitution, on the question 
of its substance, whether perishable or imperishable, but alto- 
gether on God’s keeping; and this is a question of the man’s con- 
duct, whether sinful or righteous. God says to man: “If you 
will keep my light (the Law, Prov. 6:23), I will keep your light 
(the soul, Prov. 20:27).”" “My daughter, the Law, is in your 
hand; your daughter, the soul, is in my hand (Job 12:10). If 
you will keep mine I will keep yours (Deut. 4:9).”" ‘The Law 
was given in forty days, and the soul of man is formed [773 | in 
the first forty days [after conception]. He who keeps the Law, 
his soul will be kept, and he who does not keep the Law his soul 
will not be kept.” ” 


68 For different views on this point see Castelli, Jewish Quarterly Review, I (1889), 
pp. 325 ff. 

69 Gen. rabba, 26, 11: An interpretation of "71" wn xd (Gen. 6:3) by (345 in 
I Chron. 21:27; see Bacher, Die Agada der palist. Amoréer, I, 268; III,129f. Itis attributed 
both to R. Johanan and to R. Aha. 

τὸ Midrash Tehillim, on Ps. 17:8 (Eleazar ha-Kappar; elsewhere cited in the name of 
Bar Kappara) ; see Bacher, Tannaiten, II, 509 f. 

71See Bacher, Amorder, 111, 629, and n. 5. 

72R, Johanan and R, Eleazar, Menahoth, 99b. Bacher, Amoréder, I, 234. 


FRANK CHAMBERLIN PORTER 255 


When God gives the soul to man it is, as we have seen, pure, 
and it is man’s task to keep it so. ‘‘God says to man, You see 
that I am pure, and my dwelling is pure, and my servants are 
pure, and the neshamah which I give youis pure. If you give it 
to me as I have given it to you, it is well; but if not I will burn 
it before your face,” as a priest would burn sacred things which 
had been made impure by one in whose charge they were left.” 
And with the destruction of his ‘‘soul” the man beholds his 
chance of living again forever lost. 

It was said that Rabba bar Nahmani uttered the words, “ Pure, 
pure” as he died; and that a bath qol said, “Blessed art thou, 
Rabba bar Nahmani, for thy body is pure, and thy neshamah 
went forth in purity’ [WWw.a TNaw) NN" WI Www |.” 
Here as in Wisdom 8:19—-20, is the idea of a pure body and a 
pure soul. The word "70 describes, of course, ritual, not ethical 
purity. What is meant by a pure body can be understood from 
Lev. 21:16—24; 22:4. The purity of the soul, as God gives it to 
man, belongs to it because it belongs to God, because it comes 
from above, and does not at all imply that it has received by crea- 
tion or gained by choice a moral quality before its entrance into 
a human body. In the same ritual sense a certain impurity could 
be said to belong to the body because it belongs to the earth, or 
comes from below; but this does not mean that the body is the 
source or seat of moral evil. There is, I believe, no proof that 
the rabbis thought of the birth of man as the coming of a morally 
pure soul into a morally defiled and defiling body. Weber’s sum- 
mary statement on p. 225," I have elsewhere shown to be an 
entirely unjustifiable hellenization of the rabbinical doctrine. 

In the famous parable of the lame and the blind watchmen 
an answer was given to the question as to the relative responsi- 
bility of soul and body for sin. In Sanhedrin 91ab the story 
runs as follows: 

Antoninus said to Rabbi, Body and soul can both free themselves 
from judgment. Body says, The soul has sinned, for from the day that 


73 Koheleth rabba, on 12:7. 4Baba Mezid, 86a. 

75‘*Nach der jiidischen Theologie ist der Leib des Menschen von Natur unrein, weil er 
irdisch ist, und macht auch die Seele, die vom Himmel her rein in ihn eingeht, durch die 
Verbindung mit sich unrein.’”’ The final clause is unobjectionable; namely, ‘‘ aber die Seele 
ist nun verantwortlich fiir das Thun des Leibes.’’ See my Yecer Hara, pp. 98 ff. 


2956  PRE-EXISTENCE OF SOUL IN RABBINICAL WRITINGS 


it went forth from me I lie like a stone in the grave. Soul says, The 
body has sinned for from the day that I went forth from it I fly like a 
bird in the air. The answer is the parable of a king who had fine first 
fruits in his orchard, and set a lame man and a blind man to guard it. 
The lame man said to the blind, I see fine fruit in the orchard; come let 
me ride on you and we will get it and eat it..... When the owner of 
the orchard came and asked them where the fruit was, the lame man said, 
Have I feet to walk with? The blind man said, Have I eyes to see? 
What does he do? He puts the lame man on the blind man and punishes 
them together. So God brings the soul and puts it into the body and 
punishes them together, according to Ps. 50:4, “He calleth to the heavens 
above, that is the soul, and to the earth, that is the body, that he may 
judge his people.” 

According to this allegory it is not the body that involves the 
soul in sin, but rather the reverse. The soul suggests the trans- 
gression, and makes use of the body for its accomplishment. It 
is an excellent picture of the ‘‘evil-devising soul’’ and “the body 
bound as debtor, or subject, to sin,” of Wisdom 1:4. 

In Lev. rabba, 4, 5 (on Lev. 4:4, ‘If asoul sin’), the parable 
is told in much the same words, and to it is added another, of a 
priest who had two wives, one the daughter of a priest, the other 
of a (lay) Israelite. He left some dough with them which they 
made unclean. He reckoned only with the priest’s daughter for 
the offense of which both were guilty, because she had been in- 
structed in her father’s house. So with soul and body when they 
stand before the judgment, God leaves the body and reckons with 
the soul. It answers, Lord we both sinned; why do you leave 
the body and reckon with me? God answers, The body is from 
below, from the place where they sin; but thou art from above, 
from the place where they do not sin before me.” Therefore I 
leave the body and judge with you. 

The parable of the lame and the blind watchers is introduced, 
though not quoted, in Mechilta, ed. Friedmann, p. 800 ( Beshallah, 
ha-Shirah, 2) as follows: Antoninus asked Rabbi 
ἪΣ 15 Vax PIA ay Se TM wpm md. pam na ow nw. 


was TN nw Mawr by ΠΝ Koo ΝΠ oun by wbywnw 
“Δ own 


Dipad On ἸῺ MN PROM jaw Dp in onan pa pans 
D> PRON PRw 


FRANK CHAMBERLIN PORTER 257 


Fiebig translates and interprets thus:" 

In der Stunde, wo der Mensch stirbt und der Leib zu Grunde geht: 
wie kann ihn (d. h. den Menschen) der Heilige—gepriesen sei er—vor 
Gericht stellen? (denn der Leib, der Sitz der Siinde, damit aber die Siinde 
tiberhaupt, ist ja vernichtet!). Da sagte er (d. ἢ. der Rabbi) zu ihm: ehe 
du mich iiber den Leib befragst, der doch unrein ist [Note: Vgl. Rém. 7:8. 
Die Anschauungen des Paulus in diesem Punkt sind danach sowohl 
jiidisches als hellenitisches Gut jener Zeit.], befrage mich lieber ΠΟΥ die 
Seele, die doch rein ist! (denn diese bleibt ja bestehen. Hier liegt also 
die eigentliche Schwierigkeit der Frage nach dem Gericht. Aber es ist 
zu antworten): Ein Maschal. 

This interpretation is surely quite without justification. The 
parable itself gives no place for the idea of the body as the seat 
of sin, but makes the “pure” soul even more responsible for sin 
than the ‘‘impure’”’ body. The passage means: In the hour when 
a man dies and his body perishes the Holy One makes him stand 
in judgment. [How can this be? How can he stand in judg- 
ment when his body has ceased to be?| Rabbi answers: Instead 
of asking me about the body which is unclean, ask about the soul 
which is clean [i. e., as the parable requires us to assume, it is 
more important to ask about the soul, which is from above, than 
about the body which is from below. The soul can be judged 
even if the body is at an end. But in fact soul and body will be 
reunited and judged together. | 

The rabbis are never dualists after Plato’s kind. It is man 
that sins, and man is neither body nor soul but the union of the 
two. And the contrast between body and soul was not so much a 
contrast between material and spiritual being as between earthly 
and heavenly origin. This is expressed in a popular interpretation 
of Genesis 2:7. When God created the world he made peace 
between things above [O°27527] and things below [ὩΣ ἸΩΓΙΏΓΊ]. 
On the first day he created heaven and earth. On the four days 
following he alternated between heaven and earth. On the sixth 
he preserved the balance by creating man both from above and 
from below. He formed man dust from the earth (D°NTNnNT 7a), 
and breathed into his face the breath of life (D197 y2)." In 


ΤΊ Altjtidische Gleichnisse und die Gleichnisse Jesu (1904), pp. 31 f. 


78 Gen. rabba 12, 8; Lev. rabba, 9, 9. See Bacher, Amorder, I, 412. Rashi adopts this 
interpretation of Gen, 2:7. 


958  PRE-EXISTENCE OF Sout IN RABBINICAL WRITINGS 


Sifre, on Deut., 32:2 (§ 306, near the end) it is said that ‘all 
beings which are created from heaven have their neph esh and their 
guph from heaven; and all beings whicharecreated from earth, their 
nephesh and their guph are from earth. Man is an exception, 
his nephesh is from heaven and his guph from earth. If he acts 
according to the will of his Father in Heaven he is like the 
heavenly (Ps. 82:6), if not he is like the earthly” (ibid., vs. 7). 
The soul is not the man’s self, but it is his dearest possession. As 
a man who has a king’s daughter for his wife cannot do enough 
for her because she is the daughter of a king, so whatever a man 
does for his soul he thinks he has not done enough, because it is 
from above.” It is this heavenly origin of the soul which the 
word pure, "7, expresses. The soul is elaborately compared 
with God himself. As God fills the world (Jer. 23:24), so the 
soul fills the body. As God sees, and is not seen (Zech. 4:10), 
so the soul. As God bears the world (Isa. 46:4), so the soul 
bears the body. As God endures after the world ends (Ps. 102:27), 
so the soul outlasts the body. As God is one in the world (Deut. 
6:4), so is the soul in the body. As God is pure in his world 
(Hab. 1:13), so the soul is pure in the body [TTB Wo WEI 
ΕΠΞΞΙ 1" 

The reason why man should return his ‘‘soul” to God pure is 
first of all because it belongs to God and not to the man, and then 
because only if it is pure can it go back into the divine treasury 
to be kept and given again to the man hereafter. 

The language used to describe God’s giving of the neshamah 
to man is consistent with this view of the nature of its pre-exist- 
ence, and not with any other. Weber remarks that the rabbis 
avoided the use of the word M53 (Gen. 2:7), and substitute for it 
pa" (Gen. rabba, 14, Sanhedrin, 38b). This substitution, he 
says, is ‘without doubt” a sign that while the Bible is traducianist 
the Talmud and Midrash represent creationism and pre-existence. 

Now, in fact M53 is retained in the morning prayer cited above. 
As an alternative expression ΠῚ is there used, perhaps derived 


79 abby al RW Lev. rabba, 4, 2. 80 Lev. rabba, 4 (end); ef. Berakoth 10a. 


81As D™\T is commonly used in the O. T. of the ritual throwing of blood, it is tempting 
to suppose that the old association of the nephesh with the blood led to the use of the 
word in this connection. 


FRANK CHAMBERLIN PORTER 259 


from Zech. 12:1." This word, which suggests creationism, but 
not pre-existence, is used also in Menahoth 99b (see above), 
and Weber can only say that it must be understood according 
to the general view that the soul comes from above into human 
bodies as a personal hypostasis, already long finished (p. 228). 
But in the description of the seventh heaven we have met with an 
expression still less consistent with a real pre-existence. ‘Spirits 
and souls which are hereafter to be created [MIN 27> Try |” 
is indeed a strange description of pre-existent souls, if the soul 
and its pre-existence are to be taken in Philo’s sense. An im- 
portant saying, several times recorded, and ascribed to different 
authors, declares, on the basis of Isa. 57:16, that the Messiah 
will not come until all the souls which God has made, or intends 
to make, have entered into earthly existence. In the Talmud® 
the saying reads: S12 MNVIwIT OD IW WNIT IA TN. 
Bacher supposes £13 to be used here in the literal sense of body,“ 
but it is usually taken in the figurative sense, according to which 
it was a name for the chamber ("S18) in which God keeps souls. 
In that case the meaning would be: ‘‘The Son of David will 
not come until all the souls which are in the guph have been 
exhausted.” In the Palestinian sources (Gen. rabba, 24, 4; Lev, 
rabba, 15, 1) the saying is given thus: 39 N2 Mwan 71 TR 
Mand Mawmas ἼΟΣ nvaws 55 (Lev. rabba, aw) Wraw 
“The King Messiah will not come until all the souls are created 
[or finished | which rise in the thought [of God] to be created.” 

If, now, we apply a Greek or modern measure, the two forms 
of this saying express two completely different conceptions, the 
Babylonian affirming and the Palestinian excluding the concep- 
tion of the pre-existence of the soul. But if pre-existence meant 
to the rabbis essentially the divine predetermination of all human 


82 apa Saintes 50 7n3 is used in the prayer, in accordance with 
Isa. 42:5. 


83 Jebamoth, 62a, 68b; Abodah Zarah, 5a; Niddah, 18a. See Bacher, Amorder, II, 
172, n. 5, who ascribes the saying to R. Assi. It may go back to R. Jose. See Klausner, Die 
messianischen Vorstellungen des jtidischen Volkes (1904), pp. 37 ff. 


84 Bacher translates, or paraphrases thus, Der Sohn Davids kémmt nicht friher, als 
bis alle Seelen, die in’s irdischen Dasein treten sollen, zu Ende erschaffen sind; and thinks 
R. Assi may have interpreted Isa. 57:16 thus: “for the Spirit (i. e., the Messiah) will delay 
only until I have created all souls.” 


2960  PRE-EXISTENCE OF SoUL IN RABBINICAL WRITINGS 


lives, and not the actual existence of the persons themselves in 
heaven, it would follow that the Babylonian form only expresses 
in a more pictorial fashion what the Palestinian expresses more 
literally. The free use of the word N° to describe God’s 
inbreathing of the soul at man’s birth is therefore not evidence 
of conflicting opinions, but one of the many indications that 
the pre-existence of the soul was not thought of at all in the 
Greek sense. 

Is there, then, no evidence that the pre-existing neshamah 
was, as Weber says, “a personal hypostasis” (p. 228) or a “‘truly 
living, active being” (p. 212)? The only proof that he adduces 
is the statement (Gen. rabba 8,7) that when God thought of 
creating man he consulted with the souls of the righteous. This 
is R. Levi’s interpretation of the difficult phrase in Genesis 1:26, 
‘“‘Let ws make man in our image.” It was but one among many 
interpretations of a verse which provided so dangerous a tool for 
polytheists. It was not an accepted interpretation,” and it does 
not at all bear the weight of Weber’s inference. Nor is this 
sustained by the few other similar applications of the idea to 
solve exegetical problems. Thus Deut. 29:14[15] was thought 
by some to imply that the souls of coming generations were 
present at the making of the covenant in Moab.” 

The way in which this pre-existence was pictured and the fact 
that it was no real pre-existence of the person may best be set forth 
by citing an exposition of Deut. 29:15 attributed to R. Isaac.” 
He said: 

The prophets who were to prophesy in the future,* in all their genera- 
tions, received [their prophecies] from Mt. Sinai. As Moses said to the 
the Israelites (Deut. 29:15), not “he who does not stand with us today,” 
but “he who is not with us today.” These are the souls which are to be 


created, in whom there is as yet nothing actual, and of whom the word 
“stand” could not be used. Although they were not there at that time, 


85 The reference was thought by others to be to the angels, or to heaven and earth, or 
to God’s own heart. The latter view, that God consulted only with himself, was favored by 
ys. 27, where ‘“‘ his own image” is substituted for “our image.” See Gen. rabba, 8, 3ff., and 
Sanhedrin, 88b. 

86 See Bacher, Amorder, I, 547f.; II, 232. Compare III, 453, where a different interpre- 
tation is given. 

87 Hxodus rabba, 28, 4; see Bacher, Amoréder, II, 282 f. 


88 FNIIMNM> [Bacher erroneously reads OVA] DPN DN IAW 7. 


FRANK CHAMBERLIN PORTER 261 


yet each one received what belonged to him. So Mal. 1:1 says “in the 
hand of Malachi(°2, not °79°2), because already this prophecy was in 
his hand from Mt. Sinai, but the permission to prophesy was not given 
him until this hour. Again, Isa. 48:16 means, From the day when the 
Tora was given at Sinai I was there and received this prophecy, but only 
now has God sent me and his spirit. Permission was not given him to 
prophesy until now. And not only did all the prophets receive their 
prophecies from Sinai, but also the wise men who stand in every age, 
each received his own from Sinai. So Deut. 5:19[22] says, Yahweh spoke 
these words unto all your assembly, with a loud voice, and no more. 


To this may be added a saying of R. Assi (Sabbath, 146a) : 
When asked about the proselytes, he said. Though they were 
not themselves present [at Sinai] yet their stars [the angels of 
their destiny? ] were present,” as Deut. 29:14 says. 

These passages represent in part an effort to explain a difficult 
passage (Deut. 29:14 [15] last clause), and in part the natural 
impulse to make the revelation at Sinai complete and final. The 
language used does not justify Weber’s description of the pre- 
existent souls as ‘personal hypostases” or “truly living, active, 
beings,” but explicitly excludes the literal and real presence of 
future generations, and only provides, through the conception of 
pre-existing neshamoth for a semi-actual, semi-poetic way of 
picturing the finality of the revelation at Sinai. The most, I 
think, that can be said is that we find here a slight and tentative 
movement toward connecting the person with the pre-existing 
neshamah, which is comparable to that of Wisdom 8:20; so that 
we are prompted to say that while Wisdom 8:19 represents the 
more natural Jewish mode of conception, verses 19 and 20 
together still express certain tendencies of late Jewish thought 
about the relation of body and soul. We are not led beyond this 
by the picture of the conversation of Moses at sight of the soul 
of Akiba, in Menahoth, 29b. 


DMA M8) Now wad ona PRwW ΤΉΝ ΓΙ mrp maw bye 

"Ὁ MS Sap AMS ἼΠΙΝ 5D ayy Ama Pm Now Ἢ by aNw may 
With this compare the sentence on which Bacher bases his retention of the usual sense of 
the word $3 in the sentence cited above (p. 259): Because the souls were there and the 
guph was not yet created, therefore a standing is not here spoken of (Samuel b. Nachmani, 
Tanchuma, Nissabim, near the end. Bacher, Amorder, I, 547 f.; II, 172, n. 5, 232, n. 2). 


smn oambra “a xd anmrt an by ox 


262 PRE-EXISTENCE OF SouL ΙΝ RABBINICAL WRITINGS 


The union of soul and body is not even in this later Judaism 
the fall of the soul or its misfortune, or a mere incident inter- 
rupting its true life. It is that for which the soul exists, and it 
is that which constitutes the creation of the human personality. 

The upper beings [angels] are created in God’s image and do not 
have offspring. The lower beings [animals] have offspring but are not 
created in God’s image. I create man, says God, in my image like the 
upper beings, with offspring like the lower beings. If I created man like 
one of the upper beings he would live without dying; if like one of the 
lower beings he would die without living again. I will therefore make 
him belong to both the upper and lower order. If he sins he will die. 
If he does not sin he will live.” 

This conception of man as partly of earth and partly of heaven, 
and of his destiny as depending on his deeds, not on his nature, 
is thoroughly characteristic of Judaism. Equally characteristic 
is the persistence of the doctrine of resurrection. To a belief in 
the pre-existence of the soul, such as Plato and Philo represent, 
belongs inevitably the belief that the soul is immortal, that its 
original incorporeal state of existence is more native to it, and 
higher, than its earthly life, and that the recovery of this is its 
final destiny. But all this is foreign to rabbinical teaching. 
Abundant proof is furnished by the citations Weber himself gives 
under the topic Tod und Todeszustand (pp. 336-40). He is 
obliged to say that “the connection of soul with body, that is, 
this earthly existence, was more highly prized in the conscious- 
ness of Judaism, and therefore more firmly held, than the hope of 
the union of the soul with God” (p. 340). Even here in the last 
clause the word ‘‘soul” is misleading. The rabbis did not hope 
for a union of their self-conscious personalities with God after 
death at all. Their hope was a new life in the age to come. 

There is a long account of the death of Moses in a mediaeval 
Midrash Petirat Mosheh, which was incorporated in part in the 
Deut. rabba, chap. 11, though not originally belonging to it.” 
Although this account is much too late to be cited in proof of 
rabbinical ideas, and is in part out of line with the ruling spirit 


91 Gen. rabba, 8, 11. 


92 Text in two recensions in Jellinek, Beth ha-Midrash I, 115-129; VI, 71-78. Compare 
Zunz, Gottesdienstliche Vortrdge, 2d ed., p. 154 and note e, p. 265, note b; also article “" Mid- 
rash Petirat Mosheh,” in Jewish Encyclopedia. 


FRANK CHAMBERLIN PORTER 263 


of Judaism,” yet it may not be out of place to summarize it here 
merely as an illustration of the long persistence of distinctly Jew- 
ish ideas of the relation between body and soul. When God 
declared that Moses must die (Deut. 31:14), he fasted and prayed 
with such power that it was thought that God would perhaps 
bring in the new age [the only thing that could annul the decree 
that Moses must die], until a bath qol said that the time for this 
had not come. God must close the gates of heaven lest the 
prayer move him from his fixed purpose. Moses prays that he may 
see the prosperity of Israel as he has seen its adversity; but if he 
may not cross Jordan that he may at least be left in this world, 
that he may live and not die. God answers, If I do not make 
you die in this world, how shall I make you alive for the world to 
come. Moreover, to grant his prayer would contradict Moses’ 
own words in Deut. 32:39 (last line). Nevertheless Moses per- 
sists. He would be like a beast of the field, or like a bird, if he 
could but live and see the world. When the time came that he 
must die, God sent Gabriel to go and bring his soul [NI NX 
‘rvawi|, but Gabriel would not see the death of one so strong. 
Michael would not see the death of his pupil. God must send 
the evil angel, Samael. He goes eagerly but is twice driven back 
in fear, although the souls of all men are given into his hand. 
At last God himself comes with three archangels, and Moses sub- 
mits and is stretched out in preparation for death. But when God 
calls to his neshamah to come forth, saying, My daughter, one 
hundred and twenty years I ordained that thou shouldst be in the 
body of Moses. Now thy end is come, that thou shouldst go forth. 
Do not delay; then the neshamah answered: I know that thou art 
the God of all ruhoth and of all neshamoth; the nephesh of 
the living and of the dead are given into thy hand. Thou hast 
created [N72] me, and thou hast formed [""] me, and thou hast 
put me in Moses’ body one hundred and twenty years. And now 
is there a body more pure [770] in the world than the body of 
Moses, in which was never seen any breath of stench, nor worm, 


93 The idea of the reluctance of the righteous to die does not go back to early rabbinical 
sources. Our earliest evidence of it is in the Testament of Abraham. See M. R. James’ edi- 
tion (Cambridge, 1862), and his discussion of this subject, pp. 64-70. The idea is found only 
in the older recension, A, chaps. 7, 8, 15, 16,20; and James thinks it may go back to the 
Assumption of Moses. See Jude, chap. 9. 


964 PRE-EXISTENCE OF SOUL IN RABBINICAL WRITINGS 


nor vermin? Therefore I love him and am not willing to go forth 
from him. God answers, Go forth, do not delay. I will make 
thee to mount up to the highest heavens, and dwell under the 
throne of my glory near to Cherubim and Seraphim and the 
hosts. The neshamah answers, Two of these highest angels, 
Uzzah and Azael, descended from thy shekinah and corrupted 
their ways with the daughters of earth, until thou didst make 
them hang between earth and the firmament. But Moses has not 
known his wife since thou appearedst to him in the burning bush 
(Num. 12:1). I pray thee leave me in Moses’ body. In that 
hour God kissed him and took away his soul [{Maw2 502) Ipw] 
with the kiss of his mouth. Then God wept and said Ps. 94:16; 
the Holy Spirit said Deut. 34:10: Heaven wept and said Mic. 
7:2aa; Earth wept and said Mic. 7:2a8; Joshua wept and 
said Ps. 12:2; the angels of service said, He did the righteous- 
ness of Yahweh; the Israelites wept and said, And his judgments 
with Israel. All were saying Isa. 57:2, He enters into peace, 
they rest in their beds, he who walks straight forward; Prov. 
10:7, The memory of a righteous man is for a blessing, and his 
soul is for the life of the world to come [ἼΣΩΣ FD7AD pw ΣΤ 
Nan poy nM]. 

It would be hard to find a better summary of the Jewish 
doctrine of a future life than the last sentence, with its addition of 
the new to the old; the immortality of a blessed memory for this 
present world, and the neshamah kept in order that the man 
may live again in the world to come. The whole passage is most 
suggestive. The death of Moses, the most divine of men, was 
hard to explain; and the account here given of it enforces several 
lessons as to Jewish ways of thinking, which it is hard for 
western minds to grasp. The neshamah isa being, or a personi- 
fication, quite distinct from Moses. In leaving Moses’ body it is 
evidently being separated from Moses himself. Moses clings to 
life, but it is only the arrival of the world to come that could 
have brought him escape from death when its appointed hour was 
at hand. What is promised to Moses in order to counterbalance 
the evil and loss involved in death is that he will live again in 
the world to come; and death in this world is a condition of the 


FRANK CHAMBERLIN PORTER 265 


gift of life in that. Even in view of this, life, even the life of 
animals and birds, seems better than death. It is to the ne- 
shamah, not to Moses, that a place is promised in the highest 
heavens, beneath the throne of glory; and the neshamah would 
prefer to remain in Moses’ body, since sin has not entered there, 
while some of the highest angels fell. 

We turn finally to the long passage from the Tanchuma, 
quoted by Weber (pp. 225-27) as proof of the general statement 
cited above, and as the text for his further exposition of the 
nature of soul and body and their relation to each other (pp. 
227-31). The passage is late in its attestation,” and could not 
in any case be allowed to outweigh the older material already 
discussed. But while it seems to mark a certain progress in the 
direction of Philo as compared with the morning prayer quoted 
at the beginning, it is in fact still very much nearer to that prayer 
than to Philo, very much more Jewish than Greek, in its concep- 
tion of the pre-existence of the soul. According to this passage 
the pre-existing souls are called also ruhoth. They are said to 
be in the Garden of Eden, but this seems to be contradicted by 
the fact that the angel has to show the soul, after its union with 
the human seed, but before birth, the Garden of Eden and the 
blessedness of the righteous there, as well as Gehenna and the 
torments of the wicked; and also by the fact that God assures the 
soul, reluctant to leave its heavenly abode, that it will enter a 
more beautiful world than it leaves. But the soul objects that it 
is pure and does not wish to enter this “impure seed.” To this 
the answer is that God formed this soul for nothing else than to 
enter this seed. It is evident that though the soul, as from God, 
is ceremonially pure, and though conception involves ceremonial 
impurity, yet the soul’s coming into the body is in no sense a fall 
or indeed a moral choice in any sense. It is that for which alone 
the soul was made. It is evident also that the soul brings with 
it no moral character, no personal quality, from its pre-existence. 
Righteousness or unrighteousness, which is the only thing that 
God does not predetermine about the coming man, is wholly 


9{This passage, Tanchuma Pikkude 3, like the one last cited, should not be used for 
the Talmudic period. It is not a part of the original Tanchuma, and is probably very late. 
See Buber, Midrasch Tanchuma, Introduction, pp. 550, 56a. 


266  PRE-EXISTENCE OF SOUL IN RABBINICAL WRITINGS 


future when the soul enters the body. It is only human life that 
furnishes the opportunity for such obedience to the Law as shall 
win the reward of Paradise. Moreover, such memory of the other 
world as the soul brings with it into this, is due not to its pre- 
existence as a soul, but to the visit it makes after union with the 
human seed, to the places of reward and punishment. Even this 
memory it loses at birth. The reluctance of the soul to leave its 
abode is only like the reluctance of the babe to leave the womb. 
It pictures the fact that man does not enter human life of his own 
will, but by compulsion.” All this is far from Hellenic; and the 
passage, late as it evidently is, turns out to be little more than 
proof of the persistence of the distinctive Jewish conception of 
the relation of body and soul. Man is even here first of all body, 
that which is “formed in the mother’s womb,” and the soul 
though it has a longer pre-existence than the body, comes into it 
as a stranger from without. We have here only a more pictorial 
representation of the familiar Jewish conception that man is in 
part from above, in part from below, and that he determines by 
his deeds to which realm of being he will finally belong. Once 
more I would say that while the standpoint of the morning 
prayer is that of Wisdom 8:19, that of this last passage is more 
nearly that of Wisdom 8:20, but is still better expressed by the 
two verses in their connection. The reading of these later Jewish 
sayings serves, I venture to think, to confirm our impression of 
the Jewish, the un-Hellenic, character of those verses, with their 
hesitation between the two forms of expression, the first impulse 
to associate the “I” with the body, the failure fully to identify it 
with either body or soul, the absence of any thought that the 
union of soul with body is unnatural. If our interpretation of 
these verses seemed strange and improbable when we had Plato 
or Philo in mind as a standard, it seems, I am sure, natural when 
we look back at it through the atmosphere of simple Judaism. 
Of course I do not mean that the Book of Wisdom contains 
nothing but rabbinical Judaism. It is a Greek book and could 
not have been written in Hebrew. We cannot even assume that 
its author shared the rabbinical idea that the reunion of soul and 


% Cf, IV Ezra 8:5. 


FRANK CHAMBERLIN PORTER 267 


body, the resurrection, is necessary to a true life of man after 
death. His ψυχή may have been a somewhat more independent 
and personal being than the neshamah of the rabbis, but I think 
not much more; and so far as pre-existence is concerned he seems 
to me to have had nothing but the Jewish conception, namely 
this: The neshamah, which God has created, remains his and in 
his keeping before and during and after the life of man. It is 
not the man’s self, the person, but is an individualization and 
personification of that breath or spirit of God which is the life of 
the man, and, uniting with the earthly body, makes him a living 
being. The pre-existence of this neshamah was no doubt thought 
of as real; but since it was not the man himself, its pre-existence 
was of more significance for the conception of God than for that 
of man. It expressed the idea that God foreknows and has pre- 
determined the number and lot of all men; and it is substantially 
this same idea, and not a different one, that is expressed when it 
is said that God has fixed the number of men who are to be born, 
or that at conception or during the pre-natal period of each man’s 
existence he creates or forms the neshamah within him. 

It is not too much to say, in view of rabbinical usage, that 
there is a strong presumption that the pre-existence of souls when 
it appears in other Jewish books is to be understood in this 
impersonal, or only half personal, sense; that it magnifies God 
rather than man; that it does not carry with it, as full personal 
pre-existence does, a guarantee of immortality; in other words 
that it does not make resurrection unnecessary. It does not lie 
within the scope of this essay to carry such an investigation 
through in detail, but a few illustrations may here be added. 

One of the most explicit statements is that of the Secrets of 
Enoch 23:5: “For every soul was created [ Bonwetsch, berectet | 
before the foundation of the world.” But even apart from the 
distinction between “created” and “prepared’”’” it is probable 
that these are “souls” in the Jewish and not in the Greek sense. 
The preceding verse suggests this, and elsewhere the thought 
expressed is that the number and lot and place of men are fixed 
(49:2; 53:2; 58:5; 61:2). Moreover, the eternal life which the 


93On this see Dalman, Die Worte Jesu, pp. 104 ff., 245 ff. 


968  PRE-EXISTENCE OF SouL IN RABBINICAL WRITINGS 


righteous are to inherit (50:2), although it is an incorruptible 
form of existence (65:8-10), is not the mere continuance of the 
“soul” which was made from the beginning, but is the transfor- 
mation of the man (body and soul) into an angel-like glory; for 
Enoch’s transfiguration (chap. 22) is certainly typical of the 
resurrection of the righteous.” 

The Apocalypse of Ezra insists on the dogma of predetermi- 
nation. The longed-for consummation can neither be hastened 
nor delayed. All is by measure and number (4:37; cf. Wisdom 
11:20). The fixed number of the souls of the righteous who are 
waiting in their chambers (promptuaria) for their reward must 
be filled (4:35, 36). This can only describe the interval between 
death and the resurrection. But the following verses (40-42) 
seem to refer to the souls of men unborn which were committed 
to the earth ‘from the beginning,” kept in chambers in sheol, 
and brought forth by the earth as a mother from her womb, only 
in a determined order, and at a fixed time. The book therefore 
seems to contain a doctrine of the pre-existence of souls, but that 
it is in the Jewish and not in the Greek sense is clear from what 
is said of the birth of man and of his death and of the resurrec- 
tion. In 3:4, 5 (cf. 8:7-14) we find a thoroughly Jewish para- 
phrase of Gen. 2:7. Man is emphatically derived ‘“‘from the 
earth.’ The earth is the mother, and at God’s command pro- 
duces man (5:48, 49, 50; 7:62, 63,116). With increasing age 
her offspring are less vigorous (5:51-55). Death is described 
as a giving back of the soul (7:75), or in almost Hellenistic 
terms as a separation of the soul from the body (7:100), the cor- 
ruptible vessel (7:88). But to read a Philonic type of Judaism 
into the book on account of these phrases, or even because of the 
praise of abstinence (7:125), would be a serious mistake. It is 
true that in this elaborate ‘‘teaching concerning death” (7:78 ff. ) 
the soul appears to carry the personality with it to a greater 
degree than the rabbinical sayings lead us to expect of a Jew. 
Yet even here the incorporeal existence of the soul is distinctly a 
partial existence, an intermediate state of waiting between life in 
this world and life in the world to come. Like the rabbinical 


94Compare 22: 8-10 with Paul’s “ποῦ unclothed but clothed upon’’ II Cor. 5:1-4. See 
further as to the Hellenistic character of this book, The Yecer Hara, pp. 154-56. 


FRANK CHAMBERLIN PORTER 269 


interpretation of I Sam. 25:29 is the idea that the souls of the 
wicked wander about, while those of the righteous are kept in 
chambers (7:80, 85, 91, 93, 95,101). Rest and peace in general 
characterize their existence in these habitations, though they may 
also complain of the delay of their reward (4:35, 36). They 
have escaped the corruptible, and they will hereafter inherit the 
incorruptible (7:88, 96, 97). Whether these chambers are the 
same that they occupied in sheol before birth (4:41, 42) would 
seem doubtful. At all events as they were then waiting for their 
real life to begin, so are they now again waiting for a new begin- 
ning. They do not indeed rise to another earthly life in the 
Messianic time (7:28); but after it, when God creates the new, 
incorruptible world, they will rise. According to 7:32 it would 
appear that the body from the earth or dust, and the soul from 
its chambers, would be reunited. If so, some such transforma- 
tion of the body from a corruptible to an incorruptible nature as 
the Secrets of Enoch describes must be assumed, for the new life 
of the righteous in the age to come is of an angelic nature 
(7:96, 97, 125). As in the rabbinical view, therefore, all souls 
must be born before the Messianic age can come; and the souls 
of the righteous are kept in safety and peace in the divine treasury 
for the life of the world to come. Death belongs to this world 
and to sin, and life belongs to the coming world and to righteous- 
ness.” As there is no proper doctrine of the immortality of the 
soul but only of the keeping and waiting of the soul for resurrec- 
tion, so we may safely infer that there is no true (Platonic) doc- 
trine of the pre-existence of the soul in this book.”” 

The Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch contains the same ideas of 
a determined number of souls, and a place prepared for each 
(23:4, 5; 48:6), of treasuries in which the souls of the dead are 
kept (21:23; 30:2, 3), and of resurrection as including the body 
from the earth (42:8; 50:2) as well as the soul from the cham- 
bers (30:1, 2), and as involving a transfiguration of the earthly 
and corruptible nature into a glorious form, angel-like and star- 
like, fitting them for the immortal world (50, 51). 


95 See 3:7-8, 26; 7:21, 48; 7:11-13, 113. 
96 See a further discussion of the nature of the dualism of JV Ezra and Apoc. Baruch 
in The Yecer Hara, pp. 146-54. 


; ἵ 
ἀκ κι 4 nk’ TsO me 
oe {Ὄἷ:«ψὯ2ι 2 oe 3 Pa ΟΣ, ἀρ ΜΝ ye ᾿ 
Le ἘΠ ας “θ᾽ αν τ γὴν eit lied 
- : teat .3: e nq ; 
ye ἢ 
=~ ᾿ * τύ δον ᾿ 
᾿ 4, ΤᾺΝ 
i. r 
TL. \¥ vor,» 
; ΙΕ ἐπὰν 
3" ᾿ x ᾿ 
: 7 τ. 
bs d 
Plast 
4 


PERSIAN WORDS AND THE DATE OF OLD 
TESTAMENT DOCUMENTS 


JOHN D. DAVIS 


ry 
Ν᾽ 


PERSIAN WORDS AND THE DATE OF OLD TESTA- 
MENT DOCUMENTS 


Joun D. Davis 


The Persian conquest under Cyrus the Great and his suc- 
cessors exerted an immediate influence upon the languages of 
the West. Persian civilization and political domination were 
quickly reflected in the speech of the peoples who were sud- 
denly brought into close touch with the men from the eastern 
highlands. This fact is evident from contemporary literature. 
It is accordingly proposed in this paper to institute a com- 
parison, and by citing the Persian words which up to the 
present time have been found in western documents dating 
from the end of the sixth century before Christ and from the 
fifth century, to determine, as far as possible, whether the 
Jewish narratives relating to this period stand on the same 
footing with the literature of other peoples of the time in 
respect to the use of Persian words, and thus to discover the 
date of composition with which the Persian coloring in these 
Jewish records is compatible. 

For the purposes of this inquiry considerable material is 
available. There are the inscriptions in various languages pre- 
pared by command of the Persian monarchs to record the 
glories of their reigns, royal decrees proceeding from the same 
high source and the official correspondence of the provincial 
governors with the imperial court. From Babylonia come 
numerous business documents written in the Semitic dialect 
that was current in the busy marts of trade at the head of the 
Persian Gulf. Greece offers noble literary works; especially the 
historical writings of Herodotus and Thucydides, and poems 
by Aeschylus, Euripides, Sophocles, and Aristophanes. The 
Anabasis of Xenophon also reflects the language of this age, 
although it was not written until the opening years of the fourth 
century. 

273 


2974 Persian Worps AND Οἱ TESTAMENT DOCUMENTS 


I 


The efforts of Ezra and Nehemiah in behalf of the struggling 
colony at Jerusalem, and the beautiful devotion which Queen 
Esther showed to her doomed fellow-countrymen, belong to the 
history of the fifth century B.c. They were events in the reigns 
of Xerxes and Artaxerxes, kings of Persia and rulers of almost 
the whole civilized world from the year 486 to 425 B.c. The 
Jewish narratives of these deeds (Ezra, chaps. 7-10; Nehemiah; 
Esther) are written almost exclusively in Hebrew; but the copy 
of a letter of Artaxerxes accrediting Ezra is in Aramaic (Ezra 
7:12-26), and other correspondence with Artaxerxes, recorded in 
Ezra 4:8—23, is likewise in Aramaic. The vocabulary which is 
employed contains about twelve words which are certainly of Per- 
sian origin, and about nine others the source of which is still 
under debate. 

These Jewish writings contain three terms, relevant to the 
present inquiry, which are connected with a king in his more 
personal surroundings: kether, a crown (Esther 1:11; 2:17; 
6:8), bithan, a palace (Esther 1:5; 7:7), and pardés, a forest 
or park (Neh. 2:8). Kether is believed by many scholars to be 
of Persian origin. Now it not only found employment in the 
Hebrew of Esther in reference to the Persian king, but it reached 
the Greeks also in the same century in the form κίταρις (Ctesias, 
Persika, 47). Bithan is found in Hebrew in the description of 
the palace garden at Shushan, and there only. It is not certain 
that the word came from Persia; but, be that as it may, long 
before the days of Esther the word found employment in the 
Semitic language of Babylonia. It gained currency among the 
Babylonians soon after the Persian conquest of their country, as 
early as the days of Cambyses and Darius at least (Strassmaier, 
Cambyses 63:4; 183:3; Darius, 98:2; 179:7; see BA, III, 212). 
Another Persian word, like bithan denoting a great building, 
and belonging to the vocabulary of imperial courts, is apadana, 
a palace or arsenal. It appears in Semitic Babylonian in an 
inscription of Artaxerxes IT (405-361 8. o.), referring to a build- 
ing of the sort erected by Darius the Great at Susa (Bezold, 
Achdmenideninschriften, XII and 44; Schultze, ZDMG, XXXIX, 


Joun D. Davis 275 


48-50; cf. Brown-Driver-Briggs, Hebrew Lexicon, s.v. bithan ; 
see also Winckler, Altorientalische Forschungen, 3te Reihe, Band 
I, 2; and Dan. 11:45). The word pardés, borrowed from the 
Persian, “might have reached Israel through Solomon’s connec- 
tion with the East” (Driver, Introduction”, 449; see Hecles. 2:5; 
Song of Sol. 4:13). It was known to the Jews of the fifth century 
through the existence of the royal Persian forest or timber preserve 
in the neighborhood of Jerusalem (Neh. 2:8). But long before 
the time of Nehemiah the term had gained currency among the 
Semites of Babylonia also, and it figures in a business document 
of the reign of Cyrus in the form par-di-su (Strassmaier, Cyrus, 
212:3). The word was introduced into Greek also as early at 
least as the time of Cyrus the Younger’s rule over the provinces 
of Asia Minor, for he had ‘‘a great paradeisos full of wild beasts” 
in Phrygia (Xenophon, Anabasis, i. 2.7). Thus two of these 
words used by the Jews were current among several peoples under 
Persian domination even before the days of Ezra, Nehemiah, and 
Esther; and the use of the third, and of yet another belonging to 
the same sphere, is attested in the immediately succeeding years. 

The Jewish narratives aforesaid contain three titles of Persian 
officials. The name naturally traveled with the office. Nehemiah, 
the governor of Judea, is called tirsatha; the viceroys in the 
provinces are entitled satraps, ““*haSdarp*nim (Ezra 8:36; 
Esther 3:12); and the royal treasurer is called gizbar (Hzra 
7:21). That the Persian titles crossed the border with the officials 
who bore them, and at once found admission to the language of 
the foreigners, has other abundant attestation. The name for 
treasurer had likewise gotten into the speech of the Babylonians. 
A fragment of it may be read dn a mutilated document of Darius’ 
reign (521-486 B. o.), gan-za-b[ara]| (Strassmaier, Darius, 
296:2; compare Zimmern, ZA, X, 6, 63). Other Persian names 
of the sort had also found entrance into the Semitic Babylonian: 
for example, magus in the form ma-gu-8u (Behistun Inscrip- 
tion of Darius, 18, 20, 23, 29, 90; see ZDMG, XXIII, 233); 
also in the early part of the fifth century the Persian names of 
office da-ta-ba-ra, ‘judge,’ pa-ti-pa-ba-ga, and us-tar-ba-ri 
(Hilprecht, Babylonian Expedition, IX, 28). A similar introduc- 


276 ῬΕΒΒΙΑΝ WorRDS AND OLD TESTAMENT DOCUMENTS 


tion of Persian titles took place in the Greek language. Magus 
and the magi are often mentioned in the pages of Herodotus 
(8. g., i. 101), and Herodotus and Ctesias venture to use magos 
in composition with a Greek word (Herodotus, iii. 79; Ctesias, 
Persika, 15). Satraps, officials mentioned in the books of Ezra 
and Esther, appear frequently in the contemporary history of 
Herodotus (i. 192; iii. 128), and the word ‘‘satrapy”’ is used by 
Thucydides (i. 129). The Persian honor, and with it the Persian 
title, of being enrolled among the benefactors of the king, oro- 
saggai, was bestowed upon a Greek of Asia Minor (Herodotus, 
viii. 85), and was also known in Athens (Sophocles, Fragment 
193). So far, then, as Persian official titles are concerned, the 
Hebrew records of the fifth century before Christ are exactly like 
the contemporary writings of Babylonia and Greece. 

The Jewish narratives have occasion to refer to the transaction 
of the public business of the Persian state, and in this connection 
use Persian words for treasury, g°naz (Ezra 7:20; Esther 3:9); 
for various documents, pithgam, a decree (Esther 1:20); path- 
Segen and parsegen, copy of an archive (Hsther 3:14; 4:8; 
8:18; and Ezra 7:11; Kautzsch, Aramdische Grammatik, § 64; 
Gildemeister, ZKM, IV, 208; Lagarde, Armenische Studien, 
§ 1838; Meyer, Entstehung des Judenthums, p. 22); nist°van, 
a letter (Ezra 4:18, 23); for law, dath (Hzra 8:36; Esther 2:12); 
and in reference to the postal service the technical terms 
‘@ahast°ranim, ‘used in the king’s service, and rammakim, 
‘studs’ (Esther 8:10,14). Of these seven or eight words two had 
long been current in the Semitic language of Babylonia. The 
term for law was used in the form da-ta in records of the reign 
of Darius (Strassmaier, Darius, 53:15). The word for treasury, 
g°naz, was probably introduced by traders from Persia who 
visited the bazaars of Babylon, for it is used by the prophet 
Ezekiel, writing in Babylonia about 588 B.c. (cf. 26:1). He 
mentions “treasuries (i. e., chests) of rich apparel” (27:24). 
The word is found in Semitic Babylonian also, as early as the 
reign of Darius, in the compound gan-za-ba-ra, as noted above, 
To the Greek language the Persian postal arrangements gave in 
this century the word ayyapos, whether its origin is Persian or 


JoHN D. Davis 21 


not, meaning a mounted courier, and ἀγγαρήιος, the postal system 
(Herodotus, iii. 126; especially, for both words, viii. 98). Even 
Aeschylus employs the word when he tells how beacon sent 
beacon by a courier of fire to bear the news (Agamemnon, 282; 
Meyer, Entstehung des Judenthums, p. 22). Again the vocabu- 
laries of the three languages, Greek, Hebrew, and Semitic Babylo- 
nian, are alike in respect to the adoption of Persian words. 

Persian measures also came into use in the conquered prov- 
inces. The gold coin, daric, it is thought, was introduced in this 
manner into the commerce of the West. The name together with 
the money was current there in the fifth century. The word is 
found in the Hebrew of Ezra, Nehemiah, and Chronicles;' and in 
Greek was employed in Asia Minor (Herodotus, vii. 28), and at 
Sparta, in an inscription which is believed to antedate the year 
416 Β. ο. (ZA, II, 51), and at Athens (Thucydides, viii. 28).’ 
The Persian word artaba, a measure of capacity equal to about 
twelve gallons, appears in Semitic Babylonian speech as early as 
the sixth year of the reign of Cambyses (Strassmaier, Cambyses, 
316:1, 6, 9, 18), and is mentioned by Herodotus as in use in the 
province of Babylon (i. 192). The Persian farsang, equivalent 
to three miles and a half, was quite familiar to the Greeks in the 
form tapacayyns, particularly because of its use to indicate dis- 
tances on the great post-road between Sardis and Susa (Herodotus, 
v. 52; Xenophon, Anabasis, i. 4. 1 ff.), and from its being the 
standard imposed upon the Ionians in the assessment of their 
lands for the imperial taxation (Herodotus, vi. 42). From its 
association with the post-road, this measure of distance was used 
as far west as Attica during this period in the sense of a mes- 
senger (Sophocles, Fragment 127). Thus again in respect to 
Persian words these Jewish documents relating to the fifth cen- 
tury B. Ο. exhibit the linguistic phenomena of other non-Persian 
writings of the period. 

Naturally many Persian implements and articles of dress were 


1In favor of distinguishing between ’@dark®6n (I Chron, 29:7; Ezra 8:27) and darka- 
mon (Ezra 2:69; Neh. 7:70-72), Meyer, Entstehung des Judenthums, pp. 196 f, 
2A like word, dariku, denoting a measure of capacity, is met with in the language 


of Babylonia even before the Persian conquest (Strassmaier, Nabuchodonosor, 482:7; 
Nabonidus, 623:8; Cyrus, 123:9; 316:10; see Zehnpfund, BA, I, 634; Ziemer, BA, III, 460). 


278  PerrsisN WorpDs AND OLD TESTAMENT DOOUMENTS 


made known to the West by the trader and the traveler. Some 
commodities went in advance of the Persian conquest, others came 
with the Persian occupation. In the group of Jewish writings 
now under consideration bis, fine linen, and karpas, a white 
stuff, are mentioned in connection with the hangings which 
adorned the palace of Xerxes (Esther 1:6). Bis, if indeed it 
was brought from Persia, reached Babylonia before the Persian 
armies, for it is used by Ezekiel. It had found its way as far west 
as Greece by the time of Artaxerxes, being used in the form βύσσος 
by Empedocles in the middle of the fifth century. Still other 
words of this class gained access to Greece. The people of the 
West laughed at the anaxurides or wide trousers of the Persians 
and at their saraballa (Herodotus, i. 71; v. 49; see Bahr; also 
Dan. 3:21; Kautzsch, Aramdische Grammatik, §§ 62, 64; Marti, 
Grammatik der biblischen-aramdischen Sprache, Glossary ) ; they 
remarked the turbans, kurbasia (Herodotus, v. 49; vii. 64; Ari- 
stophanes, Birds, 486), the thick rug, kaunakés (Aristophanes, 
Wasps, 1137; see Andreas-Marti), the scimiter, akinakés (Hero- 
dotus, iii. 118, 128; iv. 62; vii. 54), and the battle-axe, sagaris 
(Herodotus, i. 215; iv. 5, 70; vii. 64). All these words were bor- 
rowed from the East. In addition should be mentioned probably 
sandal, sandalon and sandalion (Herodotus, ii. 91), though 
this word had been naturalized in Greece of old (Homeric Hymns, 
‘“‘Mercurius,” 79). 

Thus, with the exception of two words which are reserved for 
the second part, and of which at any rate the Persian origin is 
disputed, all the indisputably Persian words and others with some 
appearance of Persian birth have been examined, that appear in 
the biblical narratives which tell of Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther, 
except Purim. Evidently the diction of these writings exhibits 
such traces of Persian influence as mark the language and litera- 
ture of foreigners living within the bounds and on the border of 
the Persian empire in the fifth century before Christ. 


Π 


In the earlier part of the Book of Ezra, in the section devoted 
to events which took place between the first year of Cyrus and 


Joun D. Davis 279 


the second year of Darius, i. e., between 538 and 515 B. o. (chaps. 
1-6, except 4:6-23), there are eight words which scholars hold 
with greater or less assurance to be of Persian origin. They are 
gizbar, 1:8, tirsatha, 2:63, and dark®mon, 2:69, in the 
Hebrew narrative of events in Cyrus’ reign; and nist®°van, 5:5, 
genaz, 6:1, pithgam, 5:7, in the Aramaic account of certain 
affairs of Darius’ reign (the latter word occurring again in a 
decree of Darius, 6:11, and still again, 5:11, in a written report 
made by officials of the Persian government to Darius, in which 
report also g°naz, 5:17, already cited from 6:11, and “asparna, 
5:8, are found) and parSegen, 5:6, in the indorsement on 
this report. 

The narrative in its present form, as it is found in the Book of 
Ezra, is not older than the reign of Artaxerxes (465-425 8. c.), 
but it incorporates older records (Meyer, Entstehung des Juden- 
thums; Boyd, Presbyterian and Reformed Review, XI (1900), 
414-437). And the occasional presence of Persian words is a 
proper phenomenon of such a writing, both in its narrative portion 
and in the original sources. Only three of the Persian words, it 
will be noticed, appear in the references to events of Cyrus’ 
reign. One is daric, the gold coin already discussed. The two 
others, gizbar and tirsatha, are Persian official titles. The 
name went with the office. And one of them, gizbar, occurs in 
a Babylonian document of the decade immediately after Cyrus 
(see above, p. 275). The other Persian words, five in number, 
are found in records, original or translated, that in part belong 
and in part refer to the times of Darius. The propriety of a Per- 
sian element in the diction is apparent from the nature of the 
documents (compare the manner in which the Persian word 
apadana, already cited, obtained employment in a record of 
Xerxes written in the Semitic Babylonian); and is, moreover, 
attested by the still larger number of Persian words which have 
already been cited from documents written in the Semitic dialect 
of Babylonia and dating from the reigns of Cyrus, Cambyses 
and Darius (pardisu, artabi, maguSu, gizbar, data, data- 
bara, ustabari, patipabaga). It is evident that the Semitic 
speech of Babylonia was already interlarded with Persian words. 


280 Perstan Worps AND Op TESTAMENT DOCUMENTS 


There is some evidence also that the form of expression was being 
affected by Persian influence (Hilprecht, Babylonian Hapedition, 
IX, 36). 

Included among the Persian vocables in the former part of the 
Book of Ezra is one noun, ’asparna (compare Meyer, Entstehung 
des Judenthums, p. 10), and in the rescript of Artaxerxes (Hzra 
4:6-23) are two more, which are rendered adverbially; namely, 
‘asparna, ‘diligently, ’adrazda, ‘exactly, and ’aphtom, ‘in 
the end, finally.’ The Persian origin of each of these three words 
has been called in question (Kautzsch, Aramdische Grammatik, 
§ 64; Fried. Delitzsch, Prolegomena, 151 f., and in Baer’s Daniel). 
However that may be, it is at any rate worthy of notice that these 
three words occur only in the Aramaic sections of the Book of 
Ezra; ’Asparna, namely, in the report of the Persian governor to 
Darius (5:8), the rescript of Darius in reply (6:8, 12), the rec- 
ord of the execution of the royal command (6:13), and with 
"aphtom and ’adrazda in the two rescripts of Artaxerxes (4:13, 
’aphtom; 7:17, 21, 26, “asparna; 7:23, ’adrazda). That is, 
in addition to the note recording the execution of the royal order, 
they are found only in letters of Persians to Persians, or in cre- 
dentials given by Persians and intended for exhibition to Persian 
officials. They are found in ostensible copies or translations of 
Persian documents, and that, too, in the international language of 
the time. 

This review has become a practically exhaustive citation of the 
Persian words which have been discovered up to this time in the 
Semitic inscriptions of Babylonia dating from the sixth and fifth 
centuries before Christ, and in Greek literature acknowledged to 
belong to the fifth century.’ It is quite certain that many more 
Persian words will be revealed in the Babylonian speech as the 
tablets are brought to light. It has become clear, we think, that 
the diction of the books of Ezra, Nehemiah, and Ksther exhibits 
such traces of the Persian influence as properly belong to contem- 
porary documents written within the bounds of the Persian empire 
and concerning imperial affairs. 


3 Since this article was finished for publication, a number of Persian words have come 
to light in Egyptian documents of the fifth century before Christ. From them the fore- 
going exposition has already received enrichment. 


JoHn D. Davis 281 


1Π 


The third part of the present inquiry relates to the Book of 
Daniel. For reasons which will presently become apparent, the 
time is opportune for prolegomena only, for a preliminary survey, 
for the preparation of a programme to be followed in the investi- 
gation, for a determination of the problems to be solved. The 
Book of Daniel contains Persian words, in fact it contains more 
than do the books of Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther combined. 
The book begins with an account of events which occurred in the 
earlier part of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign. Conceivably, of course, 
it may embody notes or other records made at the time when the 
occurrences or visions took place. But at any rate the material is 
arranged; and the book was certainly not thus organized until 
after the fall of the dynasty of Nebuchadnezzar and the accession 
of Cyrus to the Babylonian throne in the year 539 B.c. So much, 
critics of all schools admit; for the narrative of both history and 
vision is brought down into the reign of Cyrus (1:21; 6:28; 
10:1). The earliest date, therefore, that can possibly be thought 
of for the composition of the Book of Daniel is the closing years 
of the prophet’s life, during the leisure that came to him after 
his final retirement from public service, in the reign of Cyrus, 
shortly before the year 530 8. o. 

This date is doubtless compatible with the use of the two, or 
possibly three or four, Persian words which occur in the Hebrew 
portion of the book: pathbag, ‘a portion of food doled out daily 
from the royal kitchen’ (1:5), ’appeden, ‘building’ (11:45; see 
above p. 274),and perhaps part®mim, ‘nobles’ (1:3), and melsar, 
‘steward’ (1:11, 16); but Assyrian origin is ascribed to melgar 
by Fried. Delitzsch in Baer’s Daniel, p. xi, and to part°mim by 
Haupt, American Journal of Philology, XVII, 490. The pro- 
priety of these Persian words in a writing from the pen of the 
aged Daniel himself can scarcely be questioned. It is vouched 
for by the occurrence of other Persian words in Semitic literature 
of the time, written in Babylon and its vicinity; such as g°naz, 
‘treasury, used by Hzekiel, pardisu, ‘forest, or, park,’ in an 
inscription of Cyrus’ reign, artabe, a measure of capacity, and 
perhaps bithan, ‘palace,’ in inscriptions of Cambyses’ reign 


982. PrERsSIAN WorRDS AND OLD TESTAMENT DOCUMENTS 


(529-521 8. o.), and data, ‘law,’ and the official titles ganzabara, 
‘treasurer,’ and databara, ‘lawyer,’ attested as current in Babylo- 
nia as early as 520 B.C. 

The archaeological problem presented by the Persian words, 
and, it may be added, by the words of Greek origin, belongs to 
the Aramaic section of the book, chap. 2:4 to 7:28. At the out- 
set of the investigation, the fact that officials in the decree of 
Nebuchadnezzar the Babylonian are enumerated under Persian 
titles admits of no other plausible explanation than that this 
record was penned after the Persian occupation of Babylonia, and 
a sufficient time after the conquest for these titles to have become 
familiar to the people of the lower Euphrates valley. The ref- 
erences to Cyrus in the book and this linguistic phenomenon are 
so far in agreement. 

The presence of these official titles and other Persian words in 
the Aramaic section is adequately accounted for, First, on the 
theory that the Book of Daniel was written originally in its pres- 
ent bilingual form and by an author who lived in the troubled 
Maccabean age. It is equally intelligible, secondly, on the theory 
that the book was originally written in Hebrew, and that the 
Aramaic section is a fragment of a translation or of a Targum of 
the Hebrew (Lenormant, La Divination (1875), p. 174; Chal- 
dean Magic (1877), p. 14; compare Wright, Daniel and His 
Prophecies (1906), p. xx, but apparently differently elsewhere, 
e. g., pp. 46, 53; Introduction, p. 193, both of whom ascribe the 
authorship of the book to Daniel; Bevan, Commentary on the 
Book of Daniel (1892), p. 27; Prince, Critical Commentary 
(1899), p. 13, both of whom regard the original as Maccabaean; 
Haupt in Kamphausen’s Book of Daniel, critical edition (1896), 
p. 16; Winckler, Altorientalische Forschungen, 2te Reihe (1899), 
p. 211, note). The book, it is held, was rendered into Aramaic 
with close literalness or in expository expansion. In the course 
of time a large portion of the Hebrew document was lost, and the 
gap was restored from the Aramaic version. The Persian words, 
and the traces of contact with the Greeks seen in the names of 
certain musical instruments mentioned in 3:5, may belong solely 
to the translation, and not have been found in the original 


JOHN D. Davis 283 


Hebrew. So far as the diction is concerned, the translation into 
Aramaic may have been made as early as the time of Alexander 
the Great (Lenormant), or even in the days of Ezra and Nehe- 
miah, as is abundantly evident from the brief survey of Persian 
influence upon the languages of the West in the fifth century be- 
fore Christ. At that period too, the Aramaeans of the West held 
close intercourse with the Greeks. The peculiarities of diction 
are also accountable for, thirdly, on the theory that the Aramaic 
section, so much at least as is comprised in chaps. 2-6, is an inde- 
pendent composition, penned in Aramaic, and written one, two, or 
three centuries before the time of the Maccabees (Eichhorn, 
Hinleitung® (1824), 88 615c, ΤΙ, 619, time of Ezra and Nehemiah; 
Herbst, Hinleitung (1840), 104 f.; Strack, in Zockler’s Hand- 
buch der theologischen Wissenschaften (1883), I, 165; and 
Meinhold, Beitrdge zur Erkldrung des Buches Daniel (1888), p. 
70, before 300 8. ο.; Wildeboer, Litteratur des Alten Testamentes 
(1895), pp. 436, 443. It is mainly in connection with the fourth 
theory that the linguistic phenomenon demands rigid investiga- 
tion: namely, fourth, that the Book of Daniel was written, essen- 
tially in its present form, by the great man of God whose name 
it bears. In view of the diction can Daniel have been the author? 
Only an indirect method is available to answer this question. In 
default of Aramaic literature written in Babylonia during the 
early Persian period, recourse must be had exclusively to docu- 
ments written in the Semitic Babylonian, but even in this indirect 
way scholarship is coming measurably nearer a final determination 
of this particular point. 


θ fi 
= 
. 
-ν- 
fi 
‘ 
° 
ἵ 
4 
᾿ 
it 
4 


pet 


mAh ty 


Weert τὰ 
7 


oe ὃ 
a rs ; 


eC, Π 
Φ 
᾿ 7 
‘ 7 i 
ee 
ἥν ᾿ 
Alot ὃ 
i 
i 
i al 
Ρ . 
- 
‘ 
ἕ _ ° “-- « ° 
‘ 4 
i 
Ψ 
{ 


Maa, 0 tol 43 


5 
ἣ 
{ y - 
re 
“7 
[ἢ 
Ψ 3 i: 
r wa 
“- ᾿ 
᾿ 
‘ 
3 ᾽ 
= 
ἊΝ 
4) 
-- 
« 


WAR: λον ὧς 
ey?) eth ws 


" Md nA Ap sah a nay alah’ 


‘ hg hae ast Nir) pad ia a ‘ 


υ 
MM 3) re 
Τ 
᾿ 
᾿ fs 
ο γῶν 
w 
i i ; 
Α͂ ἂ 
τ ἐξ 
‘ 
é 
‘ 
. “ r 
‘ A 
7 
a 
‘ 
. 
’ ὍΣ 
ot 
7 
. 
= 


ARAMAIC INDORSEMENTS ON THE DOCU- 
MENTS OF THE MURASU SONS 


ALBERT T. CLAY 


\ 


ARAMAIC INDORSEMENTS ON THE DOCUMENTS OF 
THE MURASU SONS 


ALBERT T. Cray 


The tablets upon which these Aramaic inscriptions appear be- 
long to the archives of the Murast Sons of Nippur.’ They are 
records of business transactions conducted by the sons and grand- 
sons of MuraSt, namely Ellil-batin, Ellil-Sum-iddin, Rimat- 
Ninib, Mura8t (the latter two being sons of Ellil-batin), and 
Murasa (son of Ellil-Sum-iddin). In addition, the archives 
contained a number of documents which had been written in the 
interest of their servants or slaves and servants of slaves. The 
documents are dated in the reigns of Artaxerxes I (464-424 B.c.), 
Darius II (424-404 8. 0.) and in the first year of the reign of the 
following ruler, Artaxerxes II. This is practically the same 
period covered by the Aramaic papyri and ostraca found at 
Assuan in Egypt, which have recently been published by Sayce 
and Cowley. The Aramaic script used in the Murast docu- 
ments is strikingly similar to that found in the records discovered 
in Egypt. 

That the Aramaic language, in this age, was used generally for 
diplomatic purposes and was the intercommercial language in the 
marts of trade in Babylonia, Assyria, Persia, Egypt, and Palestine 
is now well recognized. That in this age also it was the language 
extensively spoken in Babylonia, is a reasonable conjecture in the 
light of many known facts.’ 

The inscriptions were scratched or written on the edge or on 
other uninscribed portions of the unbaked clay documents. This 


1About seven hundred and thirty documents were discovered in May, 1893, in the 
archives room of this house or family, by Dr. J. H. Haynes, the Director of the third expe- 
dition of the University of Pennsylvania to Nippur. Of these one hundred and twenty have 
been published under the title Business Documents of Murasa Sons of Nippur, Vol. IX 
of the Babylonian Expedition of the University of Pennsylvania, by H. V. Hilprecht and 
A. T. Clay; and one hundred and thirty-two in Vol. X, by A. T. Clay. On the discovery 
and character of these documents, cf. also Clay, Light on the Old Testament from Babel, 
pp. 398 f. 

2Cf. Clay, BE, Vol. X, p.10; Light on the Old Testament from Babel, p.396; and Sayce 
and Cowley, Aramaic Papyri, p. 10. 


287 


288 DOCUMENTS OF THE MuraAst Sons 


was done either by the scribe who wrote the cuneiform document, 
or the keeper of the archives. The fact that some appear to have 
been written before the clay was hard (see below) makes it reason- 
able to conjecture that the same scribe who wrote the Aramaic, 
wrote the cuneiform. In many instances he held the cuneiform 
document upside down. When the uninscribed portion of the 
tablet upon which he wrote the reference note was below the 
center of the document, he usually reversed the tablet so that he 
could hold it more conveniently in writing the indorsement. Some 
are lightly, while others are heavily, incised. A large number 
were written with a black fluid after the clay had become hard. 
In some instances, however, the clay was evidently not entirely 
hard, for the pen or instrument which was used to apply the fluid 
cut into the surface of the tablet.’ 

It is not improbable that every document of these archives 
originally contained a reference note written in Aramaic. These 
in the majority of instances, especially those that had been written 
with fluid upon the hard tablet, have disappeared wholly or in 
part, by reason of the fact that they have been buried in more or 
less damp earth for over a score of centuries. In consequence 
some indorsements are exceedingly indistinct, and are practically 
valueless, because it is impossible to distinguish between the 
characters of the inscription, and the black spots or stains with 
which many of the tablets are covered.* Although the tablets 
generally are well preserved, some inscriptions that were lightly 
incised have more or less disappeared, because the surface of the 
unbaked clay had become slightly rough by reason of exposure. 
The cuneiform writing, being more deeply engraved, did not 
suffer to the same extent. On the whole, these writings or scratch- 
ings are tenfold more difficult to read and reproduce than the 
cuneiform texts. In some instances the documents have even 
been studied and published without detecting that they contained 
indorsements. 


8Cf. Clay, BE, Vol. X, pp. 6f. Cf. also the important and interesting monograph by 
Messerschmidt in OLZ, 1906, ‘“‘Zur Technik des Tontafel-Schreibens,” pp. 45 ff. 


4 These were caused by a precipitation of hydroxides of manganese and iron from solu- 
tion in water from the soil. The character of the clay, which contains more than 32 per 
cent. of calcium carbonate, has caused the precipitation. Cf. my BE, Vol. X, p.1. 


ALBERT T. CLAy 289 


These Aramaic inscriptions are known in legal parlance as 
indorsements—filing indorsements—or reference notes, for the 
convenience of the keeper of the archives, or the person in whose 
interests they had been written. In many instances they describe 
the nature of the document, 6. g., “Document of Enmastu- 
uballit concerning 15 kors of dates.” More frequently only the 
name of the obligor is given, e.g., ‘Document of Labasi.” The 
fact that the documents belonged to the archives of the Murasa 
Sons made it unnecessary to mention the name of the individual 
in whose interests the document was written, whether as a receipt, 
record of a debt, lease, etc. In only a few instances do we find 
the name of the obligee or payee. One of these (No. 29) is in 
the interest of a slave of the house. 

Two of the indorsements (Nos. 5 and 8) appeared in Vol. IX. 
Five, which are here published for the first time (Nos. 1, 4, 6, 
7, and 10), are also on tablets of the same volume.’ Twenty- 
three appeared in Vol. X,° but the rest are from unpublished 
documents. 

These Aramaic inscriptions are valuable in that they offer us 
new lexicographical material. In some instances they enable us 
to restore certain data in the documents which are mutilated or 
fragmentary. But especially valuable is the light thrown upon 
the actual pronunciation of certain cuneiform ideograms or com- 
binations of characters. For instance, we learn that the deity 
which is written KUR-GAL in Sumerian, is not to be read Sadi 
ταῦ or Bél, but Amurru; NIN-IBis not to be read Adar, Nindar, 
Nin-Ura’ or Nisroch, but EnmaStu; and EN-LIL is not to be read 
Bél, but Ellil. 


5It was first intended to publish the seals, ‘‘dockets,’”’ etc., in a separate volume, but 
after I had made the copies of the cuneiform texts for Vol. IX, the coeditor inserted the 
two inscriptions, as well as a part of a third, containing simply (QW (cf. BE, Vol. IX, 
No. 54). It should be mentioned that several other tablets of Vol. IX (Nos. 3a, 31, 32a, 47, 
49, 54), besides the five additional indorsements here published, contain inscriptions, but I 
am unable to read more than these, owing to the fact that they are exceedingly indistinct 
and only partially preserved. 


6 After the appearance of the volume these were discussed by Lidzbarski, Ephemeris, II, 
pp. 203 f., to whom I sent a complete set of photographs. Further study of all the texts has 
enabled me to improve in a number of places the copies of those published in both volumes, 
which makes it unnecessary to apologize for the republication of them together with those 
here published for the first time. I expect to present also an additional number of indorse- 
ments in the texts of my forthcoming volume, which belong entirely to the neo-Babylonian 
period. 


290 DocUMENTS OF THE Murast Sons 


TD LAY 
th 
ay) i 

thay, 


% 


1 & “ 
ΓΝ » 


7 fh 
YE NY 
Taper Th Ws, » 

Va old Yfiitt 


Ay te 
he 


Titty 
ONT 
yy) hy 
“ TUALLY, 
“77 
ED 
J, 


LD LL MH 
LH CTE HL, 
DYES UD “2222-- 
ELLY HM LA 


ALBERT T, Cray 


pt us Ἱ | ΠΝ 
γ ἊΝ h We 


WL 
Mey 


᾿ 


Nh “ον 2 Βα 


292 DocUMENTS OF THE Murast SONS 
11 


Mar i oe ΤΣ \ BAA 


eal bie 5 PRR LE 
| “Hyp, 


14 
MN RUT AS 


We ΠΗ Non ms 7 


ΓΝ sa Ht sen 
iia "7 iy, Mae Wy 7; i 


= 
τ δ. 


ALBERT ΠΤ, CLAY 293 


\pp 4b W Sara. 


19 


volooy Tree 


20 
0 ν ROR 
μον ἂν 


ἧς A) a 


MANUS TW ἢ 


“Ap II he ναὶ, 


Ἢ LG 
| } Vy h YA), 
i if 4}, ο Uy yy lu 
; 3 S \4, Dy WHINY 
Ἵ file din Ij, 


19h) 
ΔῊΝ 1 AAI. 


204 DoouMENTS OF THE Murast Sons 


28 


ty 
J ῇ wy My, Ὗ ͵ 
iy ly 4 ἢ 


μη 49...) tia, 
wi Sy GW “ὦ Mm 4 ) 
Mig Ylitily 
wes” 


ἘΞ RLY dey y. sate 
4} ( 
oe 
by y 

Gite 


“7: νὴ BE, 7» Ve WB 2 Ζ ἥξ»“Ἄ“ε, hy PETIT : 
ENN KARE Ce 
ypu ne Wi 


YY 


Vi, 
ant 
"2,777 ; ᾿ 
WY Wri Villy 
if » (7 Md Uf, Minidirin, 
Pee A γ | ΠΧ, 
{ΛΝ 2 
ΜΔ} ANG 


Ἂμ 40 Ψ 
WAIT WN) ive : υὐγά ' 


28 


TIM 


ΜΡ» 
Miranner? 


NY / 
| HA yA | b ΙΝ 
Mn 
ye, 


——— 
.» 
—— 
Se 
SESS 


ALBERT T, Cray 295 


Ht > 7) 
Mi} 
Ho 
ἢ 
Ἵ 
ῃ 
AUD, 
My) Nip 
fd) 
μ 


7 


by ἘΞ RAY 
OY aya 


OAD USE ὧν 


290 DocuMENTS oF THE Murast Sons 


77. 
tt β 
“We 4 “ Wh, YJ ly 
We YR Wl, 
“πὶ, ΠΝ ! Ly, Me YY, 
if Wy 
iia Py yy , 
2 7 


ty, 
YM 


GG 


732 7 


iy 
(2: 7 


᾿ ἃ 722 ΡΣ < 
TRUS nn 


38 
δ δ Ὧν PEAT RRR 


12 TT iil gp 7) 


Y on big x 22: 
Yu ee 
/ ! ) . fh 
77 yy μ ν fh ἡ iif Vy Ὁ. 


4 ip UM, 
6; Jy Wy) 
Wt f77- 7 


YW VL 


lo PULL 


ALBERT T. Cray 


4] 


297 


42 


sf 
ayy Dow, 


43 
EV EX sidan Pian mamas 


yyy ly Yb 
WY) 44a) 


46 


HARTY ΘΈΡ ecu ue 


298 DoouMENTS OF THE Murast Sons 


ἡ Ἐπ 3 


48 


NY γον 


LEY 


“77 he Mh Whi 
RICAN “ify, YI, Mien Yi, Wy 7 " 
79 Lil hes 
| AV Wn 


yearn Help hy 
Δ eis "7 
Ah “74 


%, 
yy ih, YU Wi MH Th 


μ“ 4, 
LY) Uelyy Ὥς 


49 


Vi 4 I 

VE HOE 7 

Ω 

10s ie Me 

Wy Wit “ “ΠΣ 
LIE “bil TY pe My 
4 
(MG 


AHNLOWA TAT RUS 


a 
] Ui 


ἣν 
ule WY yy 


ALBERT T. CLAY 299 


No. 1 


The cuneiform text is published in BH, Vol. IX,’ No. 2, but 
not the Aramaic indorsement. Artaxerxes, 10th year, Adar 22d 
day. It is written with black color on the left end.° 


"2 TWIN AW 
[WAM]DONS (Ὁ) aN(?)wo2 


“The document of AbuSunu, son of Bél-Sum(?)-ibni(?), for 
Ellil-ba-tin.”® 


The indorsement enables us to restore the name AbuSunu in 
the text; but the name of the individual’s father remains uncer- 
tain. On >58=EN-LIL=Ellil, the god of Nippur, cf. the 
writer’s article in AJSL, July, 1907. 


No. 2 


CBM,” 6132. Artaxerxes, 29th year, 111 day. Incised up- 
side down on the reverse. 


yan Ἢ “MMs 
ΤΟΣ Bhi) 
“Ahé6é-utir concerning 100 kors (aur) of dates.” 


The tablet reads: 


“100 kors of dates . . . . property of Ellil, by the order of Ellil- 
$Sum-iddin, son of Murast, Ardu-Ellil, sonof...., Siriqtim- 
ninis, Apld, son of Kalbu.....son of .... bi-ia, have received 
from the hand of Ahé-utir, slave of Ellil-Sum-iddina, in Nippur; 
at the gate Kalakku, they have been paid.” 


7 BE, Vol. IX, refers to Business Documents of Murasa Sons, Vol. IX of the Babylonian 
Expedition of the University of Pennsylvania, by Hilprecht and Clay. ΒΕ, Vol. X is by 
Clay. 

8In his description of this text Professor Hilprecht wrote: ‘‘L. and Lo. E. contain 
each 2 lines of a much effaced Aramaic inscription written with black color.’’ Ifthe Lo. E. 
contained originally an inscription, it has completely disappeared, for only black spots are 
visible. On these cf. my BE, Vol. X, p.1. 

9Tn the translation of the Aramaic, the transliterations of the proper names are given 
from the cuneiform text. 

10 CBM refers to the accession Catalogue of the Babylonian and General Semitic Section 
of the Archaeological Museum of the University of Pennsylvania. 

11100 GuR suluppu....8a Ellilina ki-bi $a mEllil-Sum-iddin [aplu Sa] 
mMu-ra-Su-t mArdu-Ellil [aplu 8a] ™Siriqtim(-tim)-NinIB ΑΡ18 aplu ὅδ 
mKalbu....bi-ia ina qatAhé-utirbgal-la §a....ina Nippurutki ina bab 
Ka-lak-ku mah-ru-’ 6tira-’. Theseal of Ardu-E1l1il is on the reverse. 


800 DocuMENTS OF THE Murast Sons 


The Aramaic 395 (which is the plural of "3), confirms the 
suggestion made by Winckler (K AT”, p. 340) that "5 is the 
same as the Babylonian Gur. 

The last character of the indorsement, owing to the contents 
of the tablet, must mean “100.” It is different from other known 
Aramaic characters having the same value. Cf. Lidzbarski, 
Nordsemitische Epigraphik Atlas. 


No. 3 

CBM, 5186. Artaxerxes, 34th year, 20th of Elul. It is 
written upside down on the reverse. 

Drs Ὁ» Ἢ [ANd “Ὁ 
δ τὸ τῶ Ὁ ] 

The names written alongside of the thumb-nail marks on the 
tablet, which can be partially restored by the help of the Aramaic 
are: Ahi-ia-li, Su-lum-Babili, I8-ra-a, and a fourth, which 
from the Aramaic, may be Usura. 


No. 4 


Cuneiform inscription was published, BE, Vol. IX, 64, but 
not the Aramaic. Artaxerxes, 38th year, 11th of Shebet. Incised 


on lower edge. 
Now WOW 


“Document of Si-ta-’.” 


The Aramaic shows that the name is not to be written Sida’ 


(BE, Vol. IX, p. 71). 
No. 5 


BE, Vol. 1X, 66a. Artaxerxes, 39th year, 19th of Tishri. 
First two lines are incised on reverse; last line on lower edge. 
“T NPAN TANS Wow 
ΟΞ ΝΣ ἽΞ "DN 
ymemdbs ἸῺ ἢ 
A 
“The document of the land-rent of Eriba, son of fAndi-Bélti. 
Payment from Ellil-Sum-iddin.” 


Cf. AJSL, July, 1907, for a full discussion of this inscription 
by the writer. 


ALBERT T. CLAY 901 


No. 6 


Cuneiform inscription published, BH, Vol. IX, 108, but not 
the Aramaic. Artaxerxes, 41st year, 21st of Kislev. Lightly 
incised on upper edge; last line on lower edge. 


Ow) Iss) a an) ΠΩ 
[rormad Wn Sy 1 = 5 
ΠΡ Ξ 5 
“Document of Na’id-Bél, son of La-ba-ni concerning the barley, 


16(?) kors, and 1 ox(?). On the 5th (day) of Marchesvan, in the 42d 
year.” 


The Aramaic shows that the name La-ba-ni is not to be 
read Lamani (BE, IX, p. 62). ὙΦ means “barley,” cf. yyw. 
It here represents SE-BaR. In Assyrian inscriptions it also rep- 
resents SE-PAT-MES; cf. Johns, ADD, ITI, pp. 212 f. 

Before the numeral “10” in the second line, there is an addi- 
tional faint stroke. Unfortunately the amount of grain, which 
was recorded in the document, is not preserved, so that it is 
impossible to ascertain whether this was made intentionally. 
Following the numeral is a peculiar character which may repre- 
sent a fraction of a GuR, or it may represent alpu ummannu of 
the text. yom written with Ὁ instead of the usual W, is to 
be noted. Payment was to be made in the 42d year of the reign, 
but about two months after the document was written, the reign 
came to a close. 


No. 7 
Cuneiform inscription published BH, Vol. IX, 68, but not the 
Aramaic. Artaxerxes, 39th year, 21st of Marchesvan. Incised 
on right edge. 
[ΓΝ] Ν Tow 


“Document of Amurru-étir.” 


For the determination of the reading, “IX = Amurru for 
dxuUR-GAL, see my BE, Vol. X, p. 8, and BE, Vol. XIV, p. viii; 
also Peiser, Urkunden aus der Zeit der dritten Babylonischen 
Dynastie, p. viii. 


802 DocuMENTS OF THE Murast Sons 


No. 8 
BE, Vol. IX, 71. Artaxerxes, 40th year, 3d of Ab. Incised 


on reverse. 
RPIN MNO Www 


cpio ἘΞ. tgi =e) 


“Document of the land-rent of Nabaii-it-tan-nu in connection with 
Mukina(pv-a) son of N[abfi-it-tan-nu].” 


The last seven characters were regarded as a proper name by 
Professor Hilprecht, which he read 721572" (cf. BE, Vol. IX, 
p. 29). Cf. also m5» read by Dr. Lidzbarski Ephemeris, I, 
p. 503. The last character is 3, not 7, and the fourth from the 
end is }, not 1. It will be observed that in my copy of this 
inscription I have made the latter character extend below the 
line. The half-tone reproduction (BE, Vol. IX, Pl. VIIT) of the 
tablet, which is all I possessed in copying this inscription, clearly 
indicates that it should be thus reproduced. “59 is the older 
form of ὉΣ as in Hebrew. The inscription upon which this 
indorsement is written reads: 


“96 kors of dates of the harvest of the field(s), which are in the towns 
Bit-Zabin and Gadibatum, for the 38th and 39th years, due to 
Nabfi-ittannu, son of Sisku, which were at the disposal of E]lil- 
8um-iddin son of Murasfi, Nabti-ittannu received from E]lil- 
Sum-iddin. He has been paid.” 


Witnesses: 


Ninip-6tir, son of Nadin-Sum; Ninw-n4din, son of Nasir; 
Nadin-sSum, son of Sa- -pi-kalbi; Bel- abu-iddina, son of Bél- 
na’id, Kina son of Ninw-gamil; Nivmw-ahu-iddina, son of Bél- 
anda” 


The name of the scribe Ubar, son of Nadin, and the date 
follow besides the seal (kunukku) of Nabti-ittannu, and the 
seal-ring (unqgu) impression of Mukina(pu-a). The name 
of the witnesses I have given because of what follows. 

The name accompanying the seal-ring impression DU-a, Pro- 
fessor Hilprecht regarded as a variant of Ki-na-a, the name of a 
witness; cf. BE, Vol. IX, p.10. Cf. also his editorial note in 
my BE, Vol. X, p. 55, under the name Mukin-aplu(pvu-a). 


ALBERT T. CLAY 808 


That my reading Mukin-aplu in Vol. X, is correct, cf. BH, Vol. 
XV, p. ix. That Mukina is the correct reading of Du-a in the 
tablet under consideration is proved by the Aramaic indorsement 
7372. For the use of 4 in Aramaic for the Babylonian k, cf. 330 
for Saknu in indorsement No. 40. The abbreviation 2 for 
JMN12) is without parallel in these indorsements except N52 for 
“ZaN>I in No, 35. 
No. 9 


CBM, 5172. Artaxerxes, 40th year, 29th day. Left end of 
tablet wanting. Incised at top and center of reverse. 


xa 
nfo ἢ jw sly) 


“Rémia. Document of Rému-sSukun concerning the... .” 


The scribe first wrote N2™, which represents Rémia, the 
abbreviated form of the name Rému-sukun with the ‘“kose suf- 
fix,” after which he wrote the full name. The Aramaic inscrip- 
tion confirms my reading of this name Rému-sukun, in BH, 
Vol. X, p. 61, as against Ga-Sur and Sangt(?) of Vol. IX. 
The last character of the final word seems to be M. If it were 5 
we could read 5, which is mentioned in the document. 


No. 10 


Cuneiform inscription published in Vol. IX, 87, but not the 
Aramaic. Artaxerxes, 41st year, Sivan 24th(?) day. Written 
with black color on lower edge. 


yon Tew 


“Document of Ha-nun.” 


No. 11 
CBM, 5153. Artaxerxes, 41st(?) year, 18th of Tishri. Lightly 
incised on obverse. 
WMS TOW 
NPIN MNO I Ἢ 


“Document of Abu-Su-nu concerning the payment of the land 
rent,” 


804 DocuMENTS OF THE Murast Sons 


The tablet on which this indorsement is written reads: 


“Rent of the entire field for the 41st year of Artaxerxes, the king, for 
the fief land of AhuSunu, son of Nidintum, and Taddannu, son 
of Iddiia, which is at the disposal of Rimfit- ΝΊΝΙΒ, son of Murast. 
AbuSunu, son of Nidintum, and Taddannu, son of Iddiia, the 
Arabian, received the rent of that field from Rimft-Ninp, son of 
Murasti. It has been paid.”” 


No, 12 
CBM, 5505. Artaxerxes, 41st year, month Adar. Upper right 


and lower left corners wanting. Incised on reverse. 


[ISS Tow 


“Document of Amurru-iddin.” 
Cf. note under No. 7. 


No. 13 


CBM, 12924. Artaxerxes. Date broken away. First line is 
incised upside down at the bottom of the reverse. Second line 
is incised on the right end. 


wae 
“> Pow] 


“Ja-a-bu-u-na-tan-nu. 10 kors of barley.” 


The name {2s7" in Aramaic for the cuneiform Ja-a-hu-u- 
na-tan-nu is interesting in that it confirms the identification 
of ST with Ja-a-bu-u (=—Jabo6). Cf. my remarks in BH, 
Vol. X, Ρ. 20. 

No. 14 


Vol. X, 29. Darius, 1st year, 20th of Tishri. Incised on 
upper edge. 
FIRNWIN Ww 
N(7) (7) ANN 


“Document of Enmastu-iddin.” 


12GI8-BAR eqli gam-ri Sa Sattu 41(?) kan mAr-tah-Sa-as-su Sarru Sa isuqaSstu 
SamAhu-Su-nu aplu §amNi-din-[tum ἃ} ™Tad-dan-nu aplu ὅδ m™I]d-di-ia 
8a ina paéan™Ri-mut-NrInip aplu ὅδ MMu-ra-Su-umMAhu-Su-nuaplu SaM™Ni- 
din-tum ἃ ™Tad-dan-nu aplu §a mId-di-ia bhar-u-ba-ai GIs-BAR eqli Sudtu 
ina q4tmRi-mut-NiInriB aplu Sa Mu-ra-Su-i ma-bir e-tir. 


ALBERT T. ΟἾΑΥ 305 


On the “Origin and real name of NiN-1B,” cf. my discussion in 
JAOS, Vol. XXVIII, first half, 1907. The second line is unin- 
telligible to me; cf. also Ephemeris, II, p. 204. The transla- 
tion of the tablet follows. 

“Unto the second day of the month Ab, year first of Darius, king of 
countries, the harvest (namely), which, as the apportionment of Rimitit- 
Ninip, son of Murasa, had been set apart, he gave to Ninip (EnmaSstu)- 
iddina, son of Ninip-étir, to gather in. If on the second day of the 
month Ab, first year of Darius, that harvest he has not completely gathered 
in, the produce as much of it as should have been delivered, ΝΊΝΙΒ 
(EnmaStu)-iddina shall turn over to Rimifit- ΝΊΝΙΒ from his own pos- 
sessions, and there shall be nothing for him, together with the farmers, 
as regards the balance of the harvest.” 


No. 15 
BE, Vol. X, 46. Darius, 1st year, 2d of Tishri. Inscribed 


faintly in black color on reverse. 
ee oR Vian GP ree 


The two names of individuals upon whom the obligation rested 
are, Man-nu-lu-ba-a, son of A-dar-ri-El, and Samas-nu- 
ur-ri-’ son of [-qu-pa-’. The few Aramaic characters which 
are preserved to me are meaningless. 


No. 16 


BE, Vol. X, 52. Darius, Ist year, 21st of Tishri. Incised on 
upper edge. 
ΤΞ ΒΡ τ N=... 
ts ale 


“ |. . which is against Sa-ku-t-hu son of Hi-’[-ra-an].” 


All that is preserved of the second name in the cuneiform is 
Hi-’ and the beginning of a character which may be er. In 
BE, Vol. X, p. 71, Tread the name p77 (3), but I am now inclined 
to follow Lidzbarski and interpret what remains differently. I 
prefer, however, to read ὙΠ instead of ΠΤ, which is found as 
a Palmyrene name. Cf. Cook, North Semitic Inscriptions, p. 266. 
While the last character can be read 3, it must nevertheless be 
remarked that it can also be read P. 


306 DocuMENTS OF THE Murast Sons 


If the above translation for DP=OQ7p, ‘against,’ is correct, 
the omission of 7 is due, either to a scribal error, or the 7 has 
been assimilated.” There is no room for the character between Pp 
and Ὦ. In indorsement No. 22, DIP occurs with the same name, 
Sakabu. For D1D having the meaning ‘against,’ cf. Stevenson, 
Assyrian and Babylonian Contracts, p. 142. 


No. 17 


BE, Vol. X, 56. Darius, lst year. Incised upside down on 
the reverse. 
ΝΞ Tow | mwa 


“Tn the first year, the document concerning the house.” 


The document is a receipt for the rent of a house which was 
paid. The beginning of the cuneiform text, as well as the date, 
is broken away. Cf. BE, Vol. X, p. 7, note 2. 


No. 18 
CBM, 5137. Darius, 2d year, 16th of Ab. Lightly incised 
upside down on the reverse. 
ἼΔΩ "Ow 
“Document of Tat-tan-nu.” 


On the name, cf. BE, Vol. X, p. 64, note 3. 


No. 19 


BE, Vol. X,59. Darius, 2d year, 3d of Marchesvan. Written 
upside down in black color on the reverse. Faintly preserved. 


wo> ow 
“Document of La-ba-8si.” 


No. 20 


BE, Vol. 1X, 60. Darius, 2d year, 25th of Kislev. Written in 
black color. The first two lines are on the right end. The third 
line is on the left end. 


13In this connection Professor Montgomery has called my attention to the preposition 
‘AP: in Rabbinical Aramaic, for “Tp. 


ALBERT T. CLAY 307 


JINDI sow 
ΠΩ [}] 
IW tl Ὁ Pea 


“Document of Bél-iddin.... , six kors of oil.” 


mwa is written in the Aramaic for the cuneiform NI-GIs= 
Samnu. Lidzbarski (Hphemeris, II, p. 207) restores the 
second line jM"MWiIN, because there is a certain Ninrp-iddin 
among the witnesses. This is untenable, because the names of 
witnesses do not occur in the indorsements, and there is not 
enough room on the tablet for the characters restored by him, 
Perhaps it is the Aramaic equivalent of ®sipirri ὅδ "abarakku, 
the title of Bél-iddin. 


No. 21 


CBM, 12864. Darius, 2d year, 30th day. Lightly incised 
on the reverse. Only the upper part of the tablet is preserved. 


NII MAX Wow 


“The document of the rent of the binbania(?)” 


No. 22 


CBM, 6133. Darius, Ist year. Only the lower third part of 
the tablet is preserved. Lightly incised on obverse. 


Hl == 78 pw 
ll mow mow Dop 
noon wins 


“45 kors of barley against Saktiihu. Year second in the reign of 
Darius, the king.” 


The record of the transaction and the date on the reverse are 
totally wanting. Some of the names of witnesses on the reverse 
are preserved. The indorsement shows that the document recorded 
an obligation resting upon a certain Saktibu, perhaps the same 
individual who is mentioned in No. 16. 


808 DocuMENTS OF THE Murast’ Sons 


No. 23 
BE, Vol. X, 68. Darius, 3d year, 2d of Tishri. Incised on 


reverse. 
Seon ow 


[= ΞῚ Wan ὁ 
“Document of Ra-hi-im-E] concerning [forty] kors of dates.” 
The document reads: 


“40 kors of dates, the price of one mine of silver, for the second year 
of Darius, to be paid to Ribat, son of Bél-erba by Rahim-El son 
of Taddi’. In the month Marchesyan, year third, the dates, namely 
40 kors, in the measure of Ribat, in Nippur, at the Kalakku gate he 
shall pay.” 

On AN-MES = 58 and not "58 inthe name Rabim’-El (an- 
MES), cf. note under indorsement No. 50. 


No. 24 
BE, Vol. X, 74. Darius, 3d year, 28th of Marchesvan. In- 
cised on upper end. 
MMos one emcee 


No. 25 
ΓΟΒΗ͂, 5514. Darius, 3d year, Ist of Adar. Faintly written 


with ink on reverse. 
ΝΞ ΝΟΣ Maw] 


“Document of Enmastu-abu-usur.” 


No. 26 
BE, Vol. X, 78. Darius, 3d year, Ist of Adar. Lightly in- 
cised upside down on reverse. 
NOON pos Ἵ ΓΞ Ὁ 
Wie ES sh Seas τ 
“The document of the gift of silver (as the) tax which is the payment 
for the third year of Darius.” 


Dr. Lidzbarski read the last word of the first line, ND5%2. To 
Professor Montgomery belongs the credit for suggesting that the 
letter 7 is written upon ἢ. The scribe doubtless had the word 


ALBERT T. Chay 809 


dpw in mind after he had written [05. This gives us NOOT, 
which corresponds to the Babylonian ilki written in the text. 

Since publishing Vol. X, I have examined carefully once more 
the tablet, and have improved the copy of the previous word. 
It doubtless is to be read D3, although the upper part of the Ὁ is 
wanting. This probably is due to the fact that the surface of the 
tablet at this point is slightly raised, and that before it was per- 
fectly hard the upper part of the character was injured. 

The second word of the first line is not the name of the indi- 
vidual who received the money which was paid, as suggested in 
BE, Vol. X, p. 440, and to which Professor Hilprecht added an 
editorial note: ‘‘{ Docket and name probably to be read ">a 
(= Bél-kina) ].”“ The word is to be restored [T|33 ; cf. Nos. 
28 and 50. It appears that M22 here refers to the nidintum 
which was required by the crown from the estate. The cuneiform 
inscription reads: 

“10 shekels of silver the later gratuity (nidintum), the tax of the 
third year of Darius the king, of the ’udu of Ribat son of Bél-erba, 
slave of Rimfit-Nrii, son of Murasti, which, with their families 


Ellil-mukin-aplu, son of Nasir, from Ninip-uballit son of 
MusSsézib, has received.” 


No. 27 


BE, Vol. X, No. 87. Darius, 4th year, Tishri. Inscription 

on lower edge. 
od[a]nwer Tow 
yan ar 73 
[2s ἘΞ 

“Document of EnmaStu-uballit son of MuSsézib, fifteen kors 
of dates.” 

The name in the second line I did not read in Vol. X. Lidzbar- 
ski wrote (Hphemeris, II, p. 204), “Unter "QW steht vielleicht 
noch ein Wort mit 3TW; vielleicht aber auch Zahlstriche mit 
einem 2 dahinter.” The name is to be read 21, but it is not 
found in the cuneiform text of the tablet. Ninrp(EnmaS8tu)- 
uballit is simply called the ardu of Ribat, who is an ardu of 


14The name of the recipient in the document is to be read Ellil-mukin-aplu and 
not Bél-kina. Cf. my BE, Vol. XV, p. ix. 


810 DocUMENTS OF THE Murast Sons 


Rimtt-ninre. But in Vol. X, 55:1, 9; 73:4; 77:9; 78:7 there 
is a certain Nrnrp-uballit son of MuSézib. By the help of the 
last reference (i. e., No. 78), we are able to identify this indi- 
vidual as the same, by reason of the fact that he acts as agent, or 
rather pays the indebtedness of Ribat son of Bél-érib, the 
ardu of Rimtit-Ninip, son of Murast. 

The last word of the second line is certainly |772N because of 
the following line considered in connection with the first line of 
the cuneiform text, which reads: ‘15 kors of dates.” 


No. 28 
CBM, 5152. Darius, 4th year, 4th of Tebet. The first two 
lines are lightly incised and written with black color on the lower 
edge. The last line is on the left edge. 


po2 [1 ma ow 
[ΠῚ]  Σ ἢ UH aN ro 
»Ξ 

“Document of the gratuity of 24 shekels of silver as the payment for 
the [fourth] year.” 

On Mra cf. note under No. 26. For W as an abbreviation for 
>pw, ef. Lidzbarski, Ephemeris, II, p. 209, and Sayce and Cow- 
ley, Aramaic Papyri, p. 16. The restoration “24 shekels” is 
based on the cuneiform text which records the payment of “ of 
a mine and 4 shekels.”’ 


No. 29 
BE, Vol. X, 99. Darius, 5th year, 18th of Iyyar. Deeply 


incised upside down on reverse. 


ai) ΝΣ ipa wen 

Ἔ ΞΡ ape stn ae ΠῚ 

mNoa 252 
“Document concerning the lands of the carpenters which Hi-’-du- 
ri-’ son of Hab-sir had given to Ri-bat son of Bél-érib for rent.” 
In commenting on my transliteration (BH, Vol. X, p. 27) 
Lidzbarski (Hphemeris, II, p. 207) says: ‘Es ist zweifelhaft, ob 
in "Z2M zwischen “ und Καὶ ein Buchstabe steht.” Let me say 
that the text surely contained ” because of the space between the 


ALBERT T. CLAy 811 


two characters, and the slight indications of that letter which are 
preserved. On NO having the meaning ‘rent,’ instead of 
‘measure,’ its usual significance, cf. my BH, X, p. 27. 


No. 30 
BE, Vol. X, 104. Darius, 5th year, 11th of Veadar. Deeply 
incised on reverse. 
"OND. TDW 
pee: led 
“Document of Bél-étir son of Gu-zi-ia.” 


No. 31 
CBM, 5508. Darius, 5th year, 13th of Veadar. Faintly pre- 
served in black color on upper end. 


DDANMWIN Wow 
“Document of Enmastu-uballit.” 


No. 32 
BE, Vol. X, 105. Darius, 6th year, 10th of Sivan. Faintly 
incised on reverse. 
“TESTS alow] 
“Document of Amurru-u-pabh-hbir.” 


No. 33 
BE, Vol. X, 106. Darius, 6th year, 10th of Sivan. Incised 


on reverse. 
NOP "T NIT Wow 
“Document of Za-bid-Na-na-a concerning the Kleinvieh.” 


In Vol. X, p. 26, I translated NIP Ἢ ‘‘concerning that which 
he acquired.” Lidzbarski (Hphemeris, II, p. 207) followed by 
translating: ‘“‘der erworben hat,” to which he added: “Zu NiIp 
sei bemerkt, dass der Kontrakt von der Ubernahme von Vieh 
handelt, vgl. ΣΡ." Inasmuch as the document is a record of 
sheep and goats delivered to an individual for stock-raising (cf. 
translation, BH, p. 26), it is not unlikely that NIP means 
Kleinvieh. I am also led to make this suggestion because verbs 


812 DoocuMENTS OF THE MuraAst Sons 


with the exception of 27” in No. 29, are not used in these 
indorsements. In corroboration of this Professor Montgomery 
has suggested that as ἢ of P"N in these early Aramaic inscrip- 
tions = & (cf. also Np = N&VA and perhaps "Pl = m7 in 
the Senjirli inscription) NIP, therefore, = later Aramaic N39 (or 
iN?) = Hebrew jNX,” the etymology of which is uncertain. This 
seems quite plausible in view of the Phoenician (Punic) ἐδ, 
‘property’ (in cattle, i.e., peculiwm). This, however, may be from 
NIP ‘to acquire,’ like the Hebrew ΓΙ] from TIP, but it is not 
improbable that the relation of N23) and Nip is to be compared 
with the Latin pecus and peculium. To satisfy this equation, ¥ 


Sk. 
must represent original ὁ, cf. the Arabic WyLs . For a possible 
root of this nature, cf. Gesenius, Thesaurus, s. v. 


No. 34 
CBM, 5512. Darius, 6th year, 10th of Sivan. Slightly incised 


upside down on reverse. 
"ΝΞ ow 
“Document of Bél-étir.” 


No. 35 
BH, Vol. X, 115. Darius, 6th year, 5th day of month(?). 


First two lines incised on reverse; last two on upper end. 


ΝΞ 2 AaNba Tow 
δ [30] 
Ἢ NDI 71] 
HT WI ὩΣ 
_ “Document of Bél-abu-usur son of Bél-abu-usur, chief of the 
Su-mu-ut-ku-na-aja, concerning the tax of the sixth year.” 

Only 852 of the father’s name is written on the reverse. The 
remainder may have been written on the edge, or next line which 
is injured, or it may be an abbreviation of the full name; cf. the 
abbreviation in No. 8. The word in the third line Lidzbarski 
restored N25[72] and added: “gehort wohl nicht zum Datum.” 
As the document is a payment of ilki “taxes,” the word unques- 
tionably must be restored δ [ΓΠ] (cf. Nos. 26 and 48). 


160. DONIY, Num. 32:24, 


ALBERT T. CLAY 8518 


No. 36 


BE, Vol. X, 116, Darius, 6th year. Deeply incised on lower 
end, 
wIwADN a 


“Bél-étir-Samas.” 


On the name, cf. BE, Vol. X, p. 43, note. 


No. 37 


BE, Vol. X, 120. Darius, 7th year, 15th of Nisan. Written 
in black color on obverse. Very faintly preserved. 


NEM. 
“Nabfi-ra-pa-’.” 


No. 38 
BE, Vol. X, 121. Darius, 7th year, 20th of Nisan. Incised 


on obverse. 
ΝΞ "OW 


“Document of Mar-duk-a.” 


No. 89 


BE, Vol. X, 125. Darius, 7th year, 22d of Marchesvan. 
Written upside down in black color on reverse. 


[WN TH mow sos n(?)d2 


ἐς . of Bi-ba-a, year seventh.” 


No. 40 
BE, Vol. X, 126. Darius, 7th year, 28th Marchesvan. In- 
cised lightly on reverse. 
N'WID IO WIENI ow 
nrwia PAX FT π[Ξ ἸῺ Fos Ps 
“Document of Bél-u-sur-su, chief (Saknu) of the Ba-na-neSa- 


aja, concerning 30 shekels of silver, for the land of the Ba-na-neSa- 
aja τ 


814 DocUMENTS OF THE Murast Sons 


In making the restorations in the last line, and in translat- 
ing B= Spw , ef, Lidzbarski, Hphemeris, p. 209. Cf. also Sayce 
and Cowley, Aramaic Papyri, p. 22. 

The place-name, of which BananeSaja is a gentilic, was 
read in Vol. IX, p. 75, Ibni-Nergal (KAK-UR-MAy without 
det. ™ and 4). This indorsement corroborates my reading, 
Ibni-neSu or Bani-neSu. The place-name really occurred in 
both volumes, written Ba-ni-8u, or Ba-na-nesu, Const. Ni. 
603; cf. Hilprecht, Vol. X, p. 68. This name is probably to be 
identified with Banesa (Oxyrrhyncus) in Egypt; cf. the Baby- 
lonian place-names near Nippur: Wazatu (Gaza), Hasba 
(Heshbon), ete. 

No. 41 


BE, Vol. X, 181. Darius, 11th year, 21st of Elul. Written 
with black color on reverse. Faintly preserved. 
POINN Www 
ΡΞ 72 
“Document of Ahu-Su-nu son of Bél-étir.” 


No. 42 
BE, Vol. X, 182. Darius, 18th year, 29th of Tishri(?). 
Written with black color, upside down on reverse. 
“IM Ow 
rele) We! 
“Document of Ha-an-na-ni-’ son of Tabi-ia.” 


No. 48 
BE, Vol. X, 55. Darius, 1st year, 28th of Nisan. Faintly 
incised on reverse. 
ἼΞΙ ws(?) IN 
“Ad-gi-Si-ri-za-bad-du.” 


No. 44 
CBM, 12882. Darius, year(?), 15th of Iyyar. First line 


written on reverse, second on upper end. 


ALBERT T. Clay 315 


ἜΧΩΝ sow 
[5] 51 Ν} 


“The document of Bél-abu-usur and Arad-Nergal.” 


The indorsement enables us to restore the name of the first 
mentioned, as well as the first element of the latter, which are 
wanting in the contract, as it is fragmentary. The name of the 
father in the document is Bél-e-te-ru who is mentioned also in 
BE, Nol. XxX, J15: 13: 


No. 45 
CBM, 12856. Darius, year(?), 20th of Ab. Incised on 
reverse. 
wis (ΝΟ, 2()5. Tow 
“Document of Bél(?)-ma-(?)-ta-’ and Sama8-ai.” 
The reading of the Aramaic of the first name is uncertain. 
Only ta-’ is preserved in the cuneiform text. 


No. 46 
CBM, 12931. Small fragment. Date is wanting. Incised 
upside down on reverse. 


TINTwI2 
“Bél-Sum-iddin.” 


No. 47 


OBM, 5240. Artaxerxes, 33d year, 17th of Nisan. The first 
two lines are written with black color on the right end. The third 
is on the lower end. 

MS τ 
ie 5} 
“.... of the payment of .... year 33d.” 


No. 48 


CBM, 12929. Darius, 7th year, 26th of Tammuz. First line 
is incised on upper end; second, which is perhaps a continuation, 
is on the left end. 


316 DocuMENTS OF THE Murast Sons 


Tidal ΤΙΣ 
noon [1] 
I mow [7] 
“Document of the gratuity .... of the tax for the second year.” 


No. 49 


CBM, 4998. Artaxerxes, year(?), 20th of Nisan. First two 
lines incised lightly on left end. The third is on the reverse, 
which is very faintly incised on an erasure. 


ἜΝΘ νος 
ΞΕΣΞΞΞ ἘΞ 
ἼΔΓΘΟΝ > 


“.,.. of Ka-sir βοὴ of Bél-na-sir. To Ellil-ha-tin.” 


No. 50 


CBM, 12826. Darius, 11th year, 21st of Elul. Written with 
black color upside down on reverse. Faintly preserved. 


snort ow 
Samim 2 
“Document of Da-hi-il-ta-’ son of Ha-za-’-E].” 


It is to be observed that in this inscription the breath is 
reproduced in Aramaic by 1, whereas in No. 42, " is used; and 
NS in No. 4. 

This indorsement, as well as No. 23, throws light on the pro- 
nunciation of the divine element 58 in West Semitic proper names, 
which is especially welcome in view of the theories which have 
been propounded in connection with the Babylonian writing an?! 
for this element, and its actual pronunciation in the West Semitic 
dialect. The explanation offered by Professor Hilprecht in our 
BE, Vol. IX, p. 19, for the peculiar use of με after ilu and 
Sama in foreign names, is that it was “employed for expressing 
a sound which appeared to the Babylonian mind as one of their 
own plural endings . . . . ” and they rendered ‘i, the pronominal 
suffix of the first person singular in these foreign names for their 
own plural ending ὃ, later pronounced ἢ, ‘my god,’ and Samii, 
‘my sun,’ by ili (ilu?!), ‘gods,’ and 4Samai,?! ‘suns.’” 


ALBERT T. CLAY SLT 


In BE, Vol. X, p. 18, it was shown by the writer that ilu in 
these West Semitic names does not have the pronominal suffix 
when the element was final, and the theory was advanced that the 
scribe adopted this writing to indicate the idea of plurality as 
represented by the Hebrew os. Inasmuch as the word for 
‘sun’ in Aramaic and Hebrew is way, which in Aramaean names 
appeared as Il-tam-mes, 1 transliterated names compounded 
with 4up-MES = Same (-MES) as against Sam3i of BH, Vol. IX. 

Professor Hilprecht, in his editorial preface to my volume, 
accepted the latter view, and also the view that MES after ilu does 
not represent the first person pronominal suffix; but concerning 
ilu®!, he took issue with my explanation, and propounded a new 
theory, namely: that it is only the scriptio plena for ili, ‘god,’ 
which the scribes actually heard in West Semitic names. Let us 
weigh carefully the arguments adduced in support of this theory. 

Professor Hilprecht says: “This points to a very extensive use 
of the vowel ἡ as an ending of the absolute case among certain 
Western Semitic tribes instead of the w generally preferred in 
Arabic and Assyrian. The cuneiform texts from the time of the 
Hammurabi Dynasty to the end of the fifth century corroborate 
it.” On examination of Dr. Ranke’s Personal Names of the So- 
called Hammurabi Dynasty, which is to ‘‘furnish the necessary 
material,” it will be found that the foreign names of his list, most 
of which are West Semitic, that end in w or wm are five to one 
ending in 7, im, or e. And also that those ending in a, or ina 
consonant, are about as numerous as those ending in 2, 7m, or e. 
In this connection it will be interesting to note several names: 
Ja-a8-bi-i-la, Bu-un-tah-tu-un-i-la, Ranke, loc. cit., written 
Bu-un-tab-un-i-la, Bu. 91-5-9, 2184, and Ilu-ma-i-la, 
Ranke, BE, Vol. V-I, Part I, p. 6. 

Further, this will not hold good for the West Semitic names 
of the Murasai archives. By actual count, not taking into con- 
sideration those compounded with Jama, it will be found that 
those ending in ὦ outnumber those ending in 2; while also a num- 
ber of the latter are to be explained as having the first person 
pronominal suffix. If these are eliminated, there are more ending 
in u than in 7. Moreover, it is scarcely possible that Western 


818 DocuMENTS OF THE Murast Sons 


Semites pronounced their names as represented by the cuneiform, 
i. e., they did not double the final consonant, to which they added 
the case vowel. For example, the name in cuneiform El-na- 
tan-nu, is written in Hebrew and Aramaic ἼΩΣΟΝ. Cf. also 
Ja-a-bu-u-na-tan-nu, which is written {NIV in indorsement 
No. 13. Cf. also Ellil-ia-a-bab-bi with the Aramaic 277 N. 
The traditional pronunciation as preserved by the Hebrews, as 
well as by the LXX, corroborates this. It is not impossible that 
the cuneiform scribe doubled the consonant perhaps in order to 
indicate the long vowel or accented syllable; but the final vowel, 
being short and unimportant, doubtless was not heard. Proof for 
this assertion would be found in such variants in the same docu- 
ments as Nabti-za-bad-du written Nabfi-za-bad, or Ad-gi- 
Si-ri-za-bad-du, written Ad-gi-Si-ri-zab-du. The final 
vowels of names like Ba-ri-ki, Ha-bi-si Mi-in-ia-mi-i-ni, 
Za-bi-ni or A-qu-bu would naturally be explained as being 
influenced by the preceding vowel. Also the consonants Ἢ, 23, and 
sometimes 5 (cf. however, Mannu-iqabu and Bél-barakku), 
have a predilection for 7, whereas 7, 72 and 2 prefer ordinarily 
the u vowel. The vowel 7, in the absolute case cannot therefore 
‘‘be regarded as a peculiarity of West Semitic proper names.” 

The same writer views NI-NI in a similar light, that it was used 
to secure a pronunciation for the ‘last vowel similar to that of the 
Babylonian plural ending in é resp. 7.” As I have not been able 
to find a single example of a West Semitic name with NI-NI as an 
initial or final element, there is no need of considering the argu- 
ment in this connection. 

“To establish the pronunciation of ANP! as ΠῚ τα λον, beyond 
any reasonable doubt,” the writer quotes two names, the first is 
AN-ia-di-nu, Johns ADD, 345 E, 1, and anP!-a-di-nu, Evetts, 
Neriglissar 66, 7, and claims that they show ‘that ANP! must be 
read Ili to complete the verbal form iadinu required by the first 
writing.” It is to be observed that one name is written by a 
scribe in Assyria and the other in Babylonia. Even if the names 
are considered to be equivalent one with the other, the absence of 
the " of ja-di-nu in the second name (i. e., a-di-nu) is not 
without parallel in West Semitic names, cf. the imperfect verbal 


ALBERT T. CLAY 819 


form in Ja-a-bab-bi-el or Ellil-ja-a-bab-bi, alongside of 
I8-ri-bi-Ja-a-ma, or Ig-da-al-Ja-a-ma; but it is more prob- 
able that they are different names, the first being E1(an)-ia-di-nu 
(i. e., the imperfect), and the second El(an?!)-a-di-nu for 
Elladinu, a name like Same3-la-di-in (i. e., having the pre- 
cative). Cf. an exactly parallel case, E1(AN)-in-dar, written for 
El(an or an?!)-li-in-dar, which is next to be considered. 

The name Ellindar is written in three ways in BH, Vol. X, 
ANP! -li-in-dar, AN-li-in-dar and aN-in-dar. It should be 
noticed that the first mentioned is not the name of the man who 
bore the name as written in the last two examples. Professor 
Hilprecht says: ‘In order to read the last writing correctly, we 
have to read AN as ili (Ili-in-dar, i.e, Ilindar=Il-lindar 
=Ili-lindar.’”’) It seems to me, that this example which is 
offered ‘‘to establish the pronunciation ANP! as ili= "Ss beyond 
any doubt,” is very strong evidence that my theory is correct. 
Reading El for an as well as an?! would give us Ellindar in 
the first two examples and Elindar in the third, which appears 
much more plausible than ‘‘Ilindar=I1-lindar=Tli-lindar.” 

The examples of Greek transliterations of a very late time 
quoted from Dussaud and Macler, Mission dans les Régions 
Désertiques de la Syrie Moyenne, pp. 301 ff., like ᾿Αμβριλιου 
᾿Αμρίλιος must surely be ascribed, with Lidzbarski, to Roman, or 
some other kind of influence (cf. Ephemeris, I, p. 331), especially 
when we note the fact that in every instance (as far as I have 
examined) the LXX transliterates Hebrew names ending in oN 
with dr; cf. Ἑσριηλ, Ναθαναηλ, Αβδιηλ, etc. Moreover, the 
Massoretes have not in a single instance in any way indicated the 
existence of an overhanging vowel, as they have done in other 
cases, 6. g., in "FIN or "HDD. 

Professor Hilprecht regards 5X at the end of West Semitic names 
as “defective writing” (p. xiii). If that were true, we should 
expect scriptio plena "58 at least occasionally. In vain we look 
in the Hebrew, Aramaic, Sinaitic, Safaitic, Nabatean, Phoenician, 
etc., for a single example. And on the other hand, if ANP! is to 
be read ili, would we not expect some scribe, in some quarter, in 
the early or late periods, to have written at least once i-li pho- 


820 DoOcUMENTS OF THE Murast SONS 


netically, especially as there could be no question as to its mean- 
ing, because AN-MES actually possesses the value ilé or ili. 
Further, if the scriptio plena is "5X, or if there was “a very 
extensive use of the vowel 7, as an ending of the absolute case,”’ 
how could the Hebrews distinguish between this peculiar final 7 
and the pronominal suffix of the first person singular, as well as 
the termination of the gentilics and patronymics? Finally, the 
following names fully determine the question. lJa-ah-za-ar-an, 
Ranke, Personal Names, is written Ia-ab-za-ar-i-il, Ranke, BE, 
Vol. VI, Part I, 10:6. Compare also Ja-a8-ma-ah-i-el, Ranke, 
loc. cit., 1:17. Cf. also Su-mu-la-ilu written Su-mu-li-el, 
Ranke, loc. cit. And what is true of the element when final must 
also be true when it is initial.” This, it seems to me, is sufficient 
to demonstrate that 58 as a divine element in West Semitic names 
is not scriptio defectiva for "5x, and, also, as I have maintained,” 
that the theory that anP! at the end of these West Semitic names 
stands for El (not ili) is correct. 


INDEX OF ARAMAIC WORDS AND PROPER NAMES” 


STATA Men, 40. een np ἘΠ Lula τ is 225129 
agin cee ees pee Re sk: τ ata veer Ὁ 
cal ποὺ} ἘοΠΨέ| Ὁ Bose te, Wn eee eee ae 
PHONICS erotics ee Na st oe) 5 ea at 
Fay a). ln ee PINAL ee 
BRON oo es la teal ΜΠ ADNOS: τ: 9 911 

P< ama INS! WO VONGS Glee pga 
Rho ee oe 19 τ οσο eae 
PANIED: eG er eee ee ἘΞ shud see 
“MSITIN ὁ Bas em(pa . 45 
DSANMWiN . 27, 31 ΞΡΘΡΕΙ ς 49 
[AXDINMWUN . 4 98 (ANC) wWIA . 1 
TINMWIUN . 14 TINWw. . 46 
(S1A0I54N 44 mda. ee 
NTN. 15 ΞΕ. 26, 28, 48 

AIT aN, 5 ww. . ae ea 

DAS . . 40 bia = 1, 5, 6, 8, 16, 27 

NPN . 5, 8, 11 29, 30, 35, 41, 42, 49, 50 

MP AN . . 29 BEI | a RMN RS uaa al 

ΟΠ ΩΝ. 14 OT. 30 


15On the joining vowel ἢ when bx is initial, cf. Gray, Studies in Hebrew Proper Names 


pp. 75-86. 


16.Cf. BE, Vol. IX, p. 18. 


17 The list does not include the numerals. 


mney 
wo. 
noon. 

cial Coa 
NAC). 
ROTI 
ah 


—~won . 
Sannin . 
πη πο πὶ - 
πη πιο 
II. 
rae ae 
cbaiq) 
TSO) 
Sm 
mai. . 
ae) 
gos) 
Shrds| ς 
i>". 
5 


ἜΞΩ. 
ἌΞΕΙ 
aaa 
wb 
ie 
NOT 
(ynonna . 
Sora 
mwa . 
as 
ΝΞ. 
ΝΘ ἼΞ2. 


2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 16, 23 
26, 28, 29, 33, 35, 40, 47 


. 2, 6, 13, 20, 22, 23, 27 
. 1, 6, 29, 49 


ALBERT T, Chay 


. 50 
22, 26 
26, 35, 48 
44, 45 
wes 

33 


29 
50 


an 
26, 28, 40 
49 


6 
19 

8 
22 


Ὁ, 11, 26, 28, 47 


δ. 
Sam. 
a= lala 
xan. 
wan. 
ie) g 

ww . 


meu. 


Now . 


LO} 11. 12 
21, 23, 24, 
30, 31, 32, 
40, 41, 42, 


Mow . 


NNINAW 
nw 


ὙΌΣ). 
yan. 
aa 
ae an ue 
ROS he 


Τὶ: 


Ἵ 


. 5, 8, 11, 21 


1.5.2. 05 61, 8:9 


6,17, 22, 26, 28, 35, 40, 47, 48 
gare) i ee 


321 


29 


40 
3 
8 


16, 22 


ie, 
28, 40 
45 


18, 19, 20 
27, 28, 29 
34, 35, 38 
45, 48, 50 
ee | 
16, 22 
35 


6, 13, 22 


A HYMN TO THE GODDESS BAU 


J. DYNELEY PRINCE 


Ὁ 


A HYMN TO THE GODDESS BAU 
J. DyNELEY PRINCE 


The following hymn to the goddess Bau of Lagash, consist- 
ing of thirty-two lines, is one of a number of early Sumerian 
unilingual religious texts, setting forth addresses to the gods 
Bel, Nergal, Adad, Sin, Bau, Ningirsu, etc. The texts of all these 
hymns are published for the first time in Cuneiform Texts from 
Babylonian Tablets, etc., in the British Museum, Vol. XV, Plates 
7-30. The text of the present hymn appears in the same volume, 
Plate 22. 

Several of these poems have the peculiarity of what may be 
termed the constant refrain. Thus, in the following text, four 
distinct refrains are to be observed: viz., obv. 1-7: BAR MU-BA- 
E-GA-AM ‘it is decreed,’ strengthened in line 8 by the closing 
of the phrase with the words: BA-BIR-BIR-RI ‘it is duly appor- 
tioned,’ BIR being purposely chosen, not only on account of its 
philological connection with BAR ‘apportion,’ but also undoubtedly 
for phonetic reasons: οὗν. 12-15 end in MU-UN-MA-AL ‘it is’ or 
‘it is fully perfect;’ rev. 2-6 all close with the words MU-NI-IB- 
XA-LAM-A ‘shall it be destroyed?,’ while in rev. 7-8 there is an 
interesting example of deliberate reduplicative assonance with a 
strengthened verb-form: 7, SUB-BI BA-NI-IB-TE-EN; 8, SUB-SUB- 
BI U-BA-NI-IB-TE-EN-TE-EN (see below commentary on these pas- 
sages). Similar refrains occur for example, in XV, Plate 17 
(13930), 6, DIRIG-GA-ZU-NE DIRIG-GA-ZU-NE ‘when thou art full,’ 
referring to the moon, and especially lines 12-13, DIRIG-Ga-zU- 
NE DIRIG-GA-ZU-NE BI-SA-A-ZU-NE ZA-E DIRIG-GA-ZU-NE ‘when thou 
art full, when thou art full, when thou speakest favorably, when 
thou art full,’ etc. The same phenomenon is seen also in XV, 
Plates 15-16 (29631) in a number of passages. 

These very evident instances of assonance show most clearly 
the phonetic character of Sumerian. It should be noted that a 
translation with commentary of XV, Plates 10, 15-16, 17, and 19 

325 


820 A Hymn To THE GoppEss Bau 


is shortly to appear in the doctor’s dissertation (Columbia) of 
Rey. F. A. Vanderburgh. 

The goddess to whom the hymn of Plate 22 is addressed was 
a most important deity in ancient Babylonia. The king of Lagash, 
Ur-Bau, ‘man of Bau,’ incorporated her name with his own and 
was a particular devotee of her cult. So also the monarchs Uru- 
kagina, Gudea, and others consecrated themselves to her service 
and worship. Bau, the consort of Ningirsu, the tutelary deity of 
Girsu and of Uru-azagga, quarters of the later Lagash, is identi- 
fied in the present hymn with Gula, obv. 1%, the goddess of heal- 
ing and life, and also with Sun-na, οὗν. 19, the goddess of irriga- 
tion. As Professor Jastrow has pointed out (Religion, 60) these 
places were probably originally independent cities, which sets this 
hymn comparatively late in the city-history of Lagash. Accord- 
ing to the present text, Bau was essentially the deity of ‘increase’= 
A-NUNUS-SA, obv. 1-8; of ‘plenty’=Ga, obv. 17; of vegetation, 
obv. 14; and of human generation, obv. 15. Her will makes her 
divine power able to perfect all procreative functions (obv. 10-15). 
In this connection should be noted the fact that the act of speak- 
ing the word really constitutes creation—a peculiarity which is 
characteristic of all Semitic religions. 

In harmony with these ideas is the probable derivation of her 
name; i.e., BA ‘give, dispense’-++U ‘plants, vegetation’ (cf. on 
obv. 14); Ba-v means ‘the giver of vegetation.’ It is highly 
improbable that the word Bau has anything to do with the Hebrew 
ΓΞ, as suggested by Hommel, Semit. Volker, 382 (see also Jas- 
trow, Religion, 60). The Hebrew word ΓΞ is exclusively used 
with 4M and is probably to be regarded as a mere rhyme on 
irl, i e., 2) 7m. This expression then must perhaps be 
considered as belonging to the same class of words as English z7g- 
zag, hodge-podge, ding-dong, etc. Precisely the same rhyming 
assonance appears in the Turkish colloquial yaghmur-magh- 
mur ‘muchrain’ (yaghmur=‘rain’); karish-marish ‘a mix- 
up’ (karishmak ‘to mix’), ete. 

This Bau-hymn, whose translation and explanation, so far as is 
known to the present writer, are here attempted for the first time, 
contains many difficulties, some of which, as our knowledge of 


J. DyNELEY PRINCE 320 


ancient Sumerian advances, may be better explained in subsequent 
translations. The writer will be content if this exposition may 
serve as an instigation to other scholars to take up the study of 
these very difficult texts. 


NO. 85005. A HYMN TO THE GODDESS BAU 
OBVERSE 


1. ἘΠῚ A-NUNUS-SA BAR MU-BA-E-GA-AM(A-AN). 
For the city plenteous increase is decreed. 


2. Ert-mu Grr-su-(KI) A-NUNUS-SA BAR MU-BA-E-GA-AM(A-AN). 
For my city Girsu plenteous increase is decreed. 


8. Sp-1B KI SIR-BUR-LA-(KI) A-NUNUS-SA BAR MU-BA-E-GA-AM 
(A-AN). 
For the inclosure of the land of Sirburla plenteous increase 
is decreed. 


4, ES (AB) #-NINNO-MU A-NUNUS-SA BAR MU-BA-E-GA-AM 
(A-AN). 
For the house of my temple of Ninn plenteous increase is 
decreed. 


5. Dut NinA-(KI)-NA-MU A-NUNUS-SA BAR MU-BA-E-GA-AM 
(A-AN). 
For the habitation of my Nina plenteous increase is decreed. 
6. Sp-1B upu-MA(elippu) NinA-GaN-(KI)-MU A-NUNUS-SA BAR 
MU-BA-E-GA-AM(A-AN). 
For the inclosure of the ship of light of my fruitful Nina 
plenteous increase is decreed. 
7. MuTIN BAR SIR-BUR-LA-(KI)-A A-NUNUS-SA BAR MU-BA-E-GA- 
Am(A-AN). 
For the wine, the portion of Sirburla, plenteous increase is 
decreed. 
8. ERI-MU NUNUS-SA-BI BA-BIR-BIR-RI. 
For my city its increase is duly apportioned. 
9. GrR-sU-(KI) ZA-GIN I-I BA-DIM-DIM-E. 
Girsu with noble alabaster is strengthened. 


828 


10. 


11: 


12. 


18. 


14. 


15. 


10. 


11. 


18. 


19. 


20. 


21. 


A Hymn To THE GoppEss Bau 


Eri §AB-BI-TA UDU IN-GA-A-AN-DUG(KA), 
In the midst of the city, when I utter the word, 
GIR-SU-(KI) BAR-GA-TA DIMMER LIG KI-AZAG-GA-MU. 
In Girsu with disseminated plenty the mighty divinity of my 
shining place. 
SAB-BA BARA BABBAR-RA-NA MU-UN-MA-AL. 
In the midst of his brilliant shrine is fully perfect. 
Mv MA RU-NA-MU SU-NA MU-UN-MA-AL. 
In order to make firm my land, his hand is fully perfect. 
Sreca(A-AN) mu-uS-(xuL?)-La-8t0(KU) mu-uN-Ma-aL. 
The rain for the joyful (?) tree is fully perfect. 
DaM UR-SAG-GAL-LA-SU(KU) MU-UN-MA-AL. 
The spouse for her lord is fully perfect. 
GA-TA AN-BI-TA NAM-MA-RA-E(UD-DU). 
With fulness from her heaven cometh forth. 
Ga-Ta Dimmer Gu-LA &-BI-TA BA-RA-E(UD-DU). 
With fulness the goddess Gula from her dwelling cometh 
forth. 
E-ai(=NIN) ERI ΜῈ- puG(KA)-Ga-a..... 
The lady of the city am I, when I utter the word, 
DaMaL-Ga-TA DimMER Sun-Na DUG(KA)-GA-aA..... 
When with rich fulness I, as the deity of irrigation, utter the 
word, 
Im-xu sa-SaA(DI-DI) 1m-caBa.... . 
The lordly storm going forth splitteth asunder. 
. ... -MU A-A-MU SAG-SAB DU. .... 
. my father, the leader who riveth asunder, goeth(?). 


REVERSE 
- GAL’ DIMMER: ΝΠ ΠῚ ΤΙ Ἐπ SAL? 2 22. 
. the god Bél. 2... 
ERI-MU TIK-KU-A MU-NI-IB-XA-LAM-A? 
Shall my city be proudly destroyed? 
GIR-SU-(KI) TIK-KU-A MU-NI-IB-XA-LAM-A? 
Shall Girsu be proudly destroyed? 


J. DYNELEY PRINCE 829 


4, SIR-BUR-LA TIK-KU-A MU-NI-IB-XA-LAM-A? 
Shall Sirburla be proudly destroyed ? 
5. Upu-mA(elippu) Νινᾶ-ααν- (κι) TIK-KU-A  MU-NI-IB-XA- 
LAM-A? 
Shall the ship of light of fruitful Nina be proudly destroyed ? 
6. Νινᾶ-(κι) TIK-KU-A MU-NI-IB-XA-LAM-A? 
Shall Nina be proudly destroyed? 
7. SIBA SUB-BI BA-NI-IB-TE-EN? 
Shall any ruler, causing it to fall, annihilate it? 
8. SIBA SUB-SUB-BI U-BA-NI-IB-TE-EN-TE-EN ἢ 
Shall any ruler, causing it to fall to the ground, utterly anni- 
hilate it? 
9. Mu-LU SAR-RA-A ERI-MU A-MA-MU A-NA GAL-LU-BI? 
The one who shall overwhelm my city, who shall inundate 
me, what is he? 
10. Ep(A-SI)-n1m-ma Dimmer Ba-v-xt. 
A hymn of Bau. 
11. Dimmer AD-DA-MU. 


COMMENTARY 


The Eme-sal character of the above hymn is shown by the fol- 
lowing words: viz., GA for EK. Gar, lines 1-7; 82-18 for lipittu 
‘structure,’ 3; SAB-BI-TA, with the -B complement for EK. and 
also ES. sac, 10 and 12=8aB-BA; MU-US, probably for EK. aus 
‘tree, 14; E-GI=NIN, 18; mu-tu for EK. αὐτῦ, Rev. 9. 


OBVERSE 


Line 1.—Enri is ES. for EK. uru ‘city;’ ef. Ῥ.' 105. 

A-NUNUS-SA: A is probably abstract prefix before NUNUS ‘pro- 
geny, increase,’ although A may mean ‘seed’ (cf. P. 4 f.). Note 
NUNUS-SA, without the prefix a-, in line 8. Nunus, Br. 8175, is 
the well-known Sumerian word for ‘offspring;’ note Br. 8177: 
lipu ‘offspring;’ 8178: pilt ‘increase,’ synonym of 8179: pir’u 
‘offspring.’ Note also that pilfi—our sign can be applied to 


ΤΡ. means J. D. Prince, Materials for a Sumerian Lexicon with a Grammatical Intro- 
duction. Parts I (1905); II (1906); III (1907). Leipzig, J. C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung’ 


330 A Hymn To THE GODDESS Bau 


increase of wine; p. 8a karani (see below on line 7). In Br. 
8181, nunuS-SA=pilt ὅδ BI=Sikari ‘increase of strong drink,’ 
showing the same combination as occurs in this inscription, where, 
however, -SA is evidently merely the phonetic complement of 
Nunus. That the NuNUS-word and sign are clearly connected with 
generation is shown in Br. 8100: NuNus-TI, lit. ‘generation of 
life’ (t1)=Sem. uru ‘pudendum feminae, 11, 30, 186. 


That the sign aL = NES seems apparent from the fol- 
lowing analysis suggested by Dr. Robert Lau: 


we = 4 a= = ‘ mes δὰ (Thureau-Dangin, 283). 
So that o can ae indicate ay and a, especially if it be 


remembered that (YH is very close to ay, which = ay. The 


combination NIN simply means ‘many ( A) people’ (ay), 


hence ‘multitude, offspring.’ 

In the verbal combination BAR MU-BA-E-GA-AM(=A-AN), BAR 
must be the object of the verbal root GA and MU-BA-E- are the 
prefixes, while the suffix AM(=A-AN) is merely a strengthener. 
That is, BAR+GA (ES. for GakR=Sakanu ‘establish, make’) 
means ‘establish, decree.’ On BAR see particularly, P. 53-54: 
BAR = ‘cut, divide,’ hence ‘decide,’ and note BAR ‘portion,’ line 7. 

On the very numerous Sumerian verbal compounds of this 
class, which remind the philologist so strongly of Turkish combi- 
nations such as, for example, intikhab etmek ‘make election’= 
‘elect,’ see Leander, ZA, XVIII, 890-98. 

Line 2.—Girsu was originally distinct from, but later undoubt- 
edly a quarter of, Lagash, the goddess Bau’s city (see Jastrow, 
Religion, 56-57 and also below on lines 3 and δ). 

Line 38.—Sx-1e(ES.)=lipittu ‘inclosure, fence, wall.’ 
See also on line 6. This lipittu in this connection is probably 
a pun on libittu ‘brick-work,’ which is indicated in EK. by Gar, 
Br. 11190. Therefore, 8r-1B here must mean ‘inclosure, structure.’ 
Perhaps S£B is composed of SA ‘heart, middle,’ +1B, UB ‘inclo- 
sure’(?). Cf. Sim, Br. 8892— ‘middle’ and especially =xalxal- 


J. DyNELEY PRINCE 331 


latu ‘ring, flute;’ inclosure of metal or wood. Note in Br. 8893: 
UB=uppu ‘inclosure, district.’ Is Semitic apapu ‘inclose’ a 
loan form from Sumerian UB, IB, or conversely? 

The word Κι, following 588, is probably merely ‘place,’ speci- 
fying Sirburla, which itself is a synonym of the city-name Lagash 
(cf. Jastrow, op. cit., 57, note 1; Amiaud, Rev. archéologique, 
1888, on Sirpurla). 

Line 4.— E8--ninn0(50)-mu ‘the house of my Temple of 
Ninnt.’ E-Ninnt here evidently indicates the chief temple of 
Lagash, sacred to Bau and to her great consort Nineirsu, the 
special deity of the king Gudea. The numeral NINNU=xan8A 
‘fifty’ was probably sacred to Bau, as it was to Ninib, Br. 10036, 
to Bél, Br. 10037, and to Ka, Br. 100388. ES=AB = ‘house.’ 

Line 5.—Dw, or fuller form puL=subtu ‘dwelling,’ Sc. 25 
(see. P. 85, on DU). 

NrvA, like Girsu, was a quarter of Lagash and had a temple 
E-Ninni (cf. Jastrow, 57, 635). See also below on line 6. 
UN inNA-ki-Na-mu, the NA is merely the phonetic complement 
showing the reading N1-NA, which seems to indicate that -KI was 
not pronounced. 

Line 6.—Sz-1B; see above on line 3. 

Upvu-MA can only mean ‘light-ship’ and refers to the well-known 
sacred ship of Bau (Jastrow, 655) called also ‘‘ship of the bril- 
liant offspring,” which harmonizes with the expression found here 
“ship of light.’ According to Nebk., I. R. 54, 6. iii, line 10, 
many gods had such sacred ships which were often studded with 
jewels and in which the deities were frequently carried in proces- 
sion on festal occasions (I. R. 55, ο. iv, 1-2). The origin of this 
custom of dedicating sacred ships to gods must perhaps be sought 
in the absolute dependence of the ancient Babylonians on water; 
i. e., rivers, canals, ditches, etc. Significant in this respect is also 
the ancient Egyptian custom of using sacred ships. Egypt was, 
of course, peculiarly dependent on the Nile for its sustenance. 
Jastrow (655) calls attention to the interesting survival of the 
same idea in the Mahmal, the annual Khedivial gift to Mecca of a 
tabernacle in the form of aship. It is possible that the Hebrew Ark 
of the Covenant was primitively a similar ship (thus also Jastrow). 


aoe A Hymn To THE GoppEss BAu 


On GAaN—=GAN in Nini-aan, cf. P. 121. Gan=primarily 
‘fulness,’ I translate ‘fruitful.’ 
Line 7.,.-“‘For the wine, increase is decreed.” Note in this 


connection pili (= 24.4) 3a karani ‘increase of wine;’ pilt 


$a Sikari ‘increase of strong drink,’ cited Muss-Arnolt, 8038, 
which seem to be exact parallels with the present passage. See 
above on line 1. Murtin is Eme-sal for EK. GESTIN ‘wine;’ cf. 
P, 247-248. 

Line 8.—This line ends the sentence, summarizing the preced- 
ing statements. Note nunus-SA+3 p. suffix -BI, without the prefix 
A- seen in the preceding lines. 

Brr= BIR, Br. 196, must be cognate with BAR = BAR ‘appor- 
tion, divide;’ BAR also has the value Bir, Br. 1724, although not 


usually. Cf. BIR = ry. “ἃ ‘subdivide’ and see P. 60 8. v. BIR—= BIR. 


The reduplication BIR-BIR-RI in this passage indicates a thorough 
apportionment. 

Line 9.—Za-cin=uknt ‘shining, brilliant,’ and is applied to 
crystal especially, but is also a synonym of gipru ‘alabaster, 
marble,’ which seems more appropriate here. 

I-1 (not TUR-TUR, owing to the context) must be a redupli- 
cation of 1=na’adu ‘be exalted,’ 3980; hence 1-1 ‘noble.’ 

Dim-piM=— RAP-RAP which according to P. 78, 8. v. DIM, 
can denote ‘strength.’ It is possible, however, that this is merely 
a phonetic writing for ES. pim—=EK. cim=—GIM ‘make, con- 
struct.’ In this case, we have a paronomastic association, so com- 
mon a phenomenon in Sumerian, between the two words. 

Line 10.—Sas-si-Ta ‘from its midst’ is ES.= Br. 7982: ὅλβ- 
BA; with which compare the form 8AB-BA in line 12. The EK. 
full form of ὅλ ‘heart, midst’ is SAG, Br. 7981. This ὅλα also 
appears in KS. 

Upu= timu ‘day’ must=—‘when’ here. 

In-Ga-a-AN-DUG(KA) ‘when I speak’ is probably first person, 
owing to the following line K1-AzAG-Ga-MuU ‘my shining place’ 
with the suffix -mu of the first person. The element GA-A-AN is 
usually written Ga-AN; cf. Br. p. 544. 


J. DYNELEY PRINCE 3.9. 


Line 11.—Bar-Ga-ta probably means ‘with (TA) the appor- 
tionment (BAR; see on line 1) of plenty’ (GA). Note that ca= 
GA usually means ‘teat, udder, milk’ (P. 111), but Gaba, the 
longer form of another Ga-word, also shortened to GA, can mean 


duxxudu ‘be plenteous.’ Note that a =a, Br. 6317, 


also= malt ‘be full.’ Cf. on line 16 5. v. Ga-TA, 

DIMMER 116 ‘the mighty god’ (116 Ξ-- KAL ‘mighty’ ) probably 
alludes to Nrinarrsu, the consort of Bau. Note that AN. KAL 
also= Bél, Br. 6191, and Papsuxat, Br. 6192. 

Ki-azaG-Ga-MU ‘my shining place’ gives the personal deter- 
mination to the entire sentence, as -MU must=‘my.’ This is per- 
haps an allusion to Uru-azaga, lit. ‘shining city,’ a quarter of 
Lagash (see Jastrow, 57). 

Line 12.—Sas-pa. See above on line 10. 

Bara ‘shrine;’ see P. 55 for full discussion. 

ΒΑΒΒΑΒ usually means ‘sun,’ but can also mean pigt ‘white, 
bright,’ Br. 7788. The reading BABBAR is employed here, as 
shown by the complement -rA, evidently because of the assonance 
with the preceding BARA ‘shrine.’ 

I read the verb MU-UN-MA-AL from ES. MAL=—basti ‘be,’ Br. 
6811; —Sakanu ‘be established, Br. 6818. Mat can also 
mean gamalu ‘be perfected,’ Br. 6812 and malt ‘be full,’ Br. 
6814, the latter perhaps being a Semitic pun on the value MAL. 
The sense ‘be perfected’ comes, of course, from the idea, ‘be, exist 
par excellence. The syllable Ma-AL might be read BA-AL, as the 
two characters BA and Ma are often written identically, but in this 
inscription, the writer distinguishes his Ba carefully from Ma, as 
written here. Note in lines 1 ff. If the syllable were really BAL, 
it could be regarded as a spelled-out form of BAL=‘break into, 
penetrate, be strong’ (see P. 50). 

Line 13.—Mvu ma rvu-NA-Mu ‘for the making firm of my land.’ 
This is very difficult. Mu is probably the preposition MU=assu 
‘in order to,’ Br. 1226. Ma, I regard as the ES. form for 
matu ‘land,’ Br. 6774. The fuller form is MA-pA—matu; lit- 
erally ‘strong land’ (see P. 228 8. v. MA=MA). Rv means 
chiefly nadti ‘lay down, establish,’ especially ‘a dwelling,’ when 


984 A Hymn τὸ THE GoppEss Bau 


used with Subtu ‘dwelling’ (see Muss-Arnolt, 6466). Also note 
Br. 14833: nu=nadt. The original full form may have been 
RUN, as we have what seems to be the phonetic complement -NA 
following RU. 

Su-na ‘his hand,’ means ‘his power.’ 

Line 14.—Szrga=A.AN ‘water of heaven’=‘rain.’ See P. 
Part 111, on seq. 

I regard mu-vS as the ES. form for EK. Gxs ‘tree.’ The sign 
following this is unclear, but may have been xuL= XUL= xada 
‘rejoice,’ Br. 10084; P. 180, but this is not certain. It may also 
have been a plant-name with determinative MUS = GES. 

Line 15.—‘The wife is perfect (i. e., satisfying) to her hus- 
band’ fittingly caps the climax of these deeds of power. 

Line 16.—This line seems to begin a new paragraph. On 
GA-TA ‘with fulness,’ see above on line 11. 

NAM-MA-RA-E£ rather than the more usual NAM-BA-RA-E£, as the 
character is quite distinct from the Ba written elsewhere in this 
document. See for example, lines 1 ff.; rev. line 8. That Nam 
can be used with the prefix MA- is not surprising, as NAM also 
occurs with MUN==NAM-MUN and with MIN=NamM-MIN, Br. p. 538a. 
Hence I read here NAM-MA-RA-E£ although NAM-BA- would be more 
natural and more common. Nam does not always denote the 
negative and the context precludes a negative meaning here. 
Cf. especially IV. R. 20, 2, obv. 3-4: NaM-TA-E-GAL(IK) =tapti 
‘thou openest;’ IV. R. 16, 39-40a: NAM-XA-BA-RA-TAR-RU-DA = 
lirfraisu ‘may they curse him.’ 

Line 17.—Gula is merely another name for Bau in this pas- 
sage (see Jastrow, 60). 

Ba-ra-£(UD-DU) ‘she goes forth;’ see Br. 7873. 

Line 18.—The scribe has written in E-GI as the pronunciation 
of NIN here. E-at is a value for KU, Br. 10501, rather than for 
NIN and with KU, Ἐ-ΟἸ means ‘greatness.’ See P. 96 8. v. EGI. 
That EGI means ‘lady’ = NIN here is incontrovertible. 

ΜΈ-Α, evidently ‘I am.’ This is the ES. form for EK. m&v, 
used of all three persons. See Prince, Introduction, I, §4, 71. 

Due-Ga-A .... was probably followed by -mu=‘when I 
speak.’ 


J. DYNELEY PRINCE 335 


Line 19.—Damat is the ES. form of DaGaL ‘wide, roomy, 
extensive.’ See P. 69, 8. v. DAGAL. 

The goddess Sun-Na is interesting. The sign, also with value 
GUL (see P. 162), means ‘pour, inundate.’ Note Br. 8959: auL= 
nartabu ‘irrigation.’ The sun-value here is confirmed by the 
-NA complement. Note that the word GUL means, with this sign, 
‘destroy,’ from idea ‘inundate destructively,’ but with sun it seems 
to mean exclusively ‘irrigate, water.’ According to Scheil, 
Recueil de Travaux, XVII, 39, Lagash had a temple to a deity 
Niy-sun, which is mentioned in a valuable list of temples of 
Lagash. It seems probable from the present passage that Bau 
identifies herself with this god also. See above Introduction on 
this hymn. 

Line 20.—Im-xu. Im ‘storm’ is to be read Im here and not 
NI, as the scribe has taken special pains to indicate the pronuncia- 
tion IM, as in line 18 with NIN, pron. E-a1. I regard κα as mean- 
ing ‘lordly.’ See P. 210-211. 

Sa-sA=DI-DI probably means suté¢ti ‘going forth,’ Br. 
9564, and qualifies the lordly storm. 

IM-GABA . . . . may indicate some part of pataru ‘split,’ a 
natural meaning with storm. See P. 113, s. v. GaBA=GAB. 

Line 21.—‘My father’ may allude to Anu the father of Bau. 
Sac ‘head’ means clearly aSaridu ‘leader,’ Br. 3509. 

SaB means baqamu ‘tear asunder,’ Br. 5667. 

Du=DU may be a part of pu=alaku ‘go.’ 


REVERSE 


Line 1.—The line is too mutilated to interpret. 

Line 2.—T1IK-KU-A seems to mean ‘proudly,’ 1. 6., TIK—=kisadu 
‘neck,’ Br. 3215, passim; KU or GU can mean ‘lordly’ (see P. s. v. 
KU, 210-211); and A is the complement. The entire expression 
probably means ‘with proud or lordly neck.’ 

Mu-NI-IB-XA-LAM-A ‘it is destroyed’ with the passive expressed 
by the infix -nrB-; viz., ‘shall one destroy IT?’ For XA-LAM-a, 
ef. Br. 11850: xa-LaM=xulluqu ‘destroy.’ 

The key to the meaning of lines rev. 1-8 is given by rev. 9, 
where a question is clearly indicated by a-NA ‘what?’ These 


890 A Hymn To THE GoppgEss Bau 


lines must all be rhetorical questions such as the biblical question: 
“What is man that thou art mindful of him and the son of man 
that thou shouldst consider him?” Ps. 8:4. 

In lines 3-6 the same names of Lagash are repeated as occur 
in oby. 2-6, the idea being ‘“‘Can any part of my great city Lagash 
ever be destroyed by an enemy?” 

Line 7.—S1Ba must mean ‘ruler’ here. It originally denoted 
‘shepherd,’ Br. 5684: ret ‘shepherd.’ 

Sus-Br must mean maqatu ‘fall.’ Br. 1432. Svus-sr is per- 
haps a hanging clause preceding the finite TEN = bal ‘annihilate,’ 
Br. 7714. 

Line 8.—So in this line we find a rhetorical repetition of line 7 
with reduplicated forms SuB-SUB-BI and TEN-TEN = bullt ‘utterly 
destroy,’ Br. 7716. Note the strengthened verbal prefix UBANIB 
as contrasted with BANIB in line 7 (see above, Introduction). 

Line 9.—Sar-RA-A=kaSadu ‘conquer, overwhelm,’ 4319, 
evidently participial, as is also A-MA-mu ‘he who inundates’ me; 
viz., Br. 11510: a-mA-MA—mé raxacu ‘inundate, said of waters.’ 

A-NA is mind ‘what?’ Br. 11434. 

GaL(IK)-Lu-Br is GAL=ba8t ‘to be’ + phonetic complement 
LU + -BI =suffix of the third person singular. 

This last line, as remarked above on line 2, rev., gives the key 
to the meaning of the whole reverse. 

Line 10.—‘A hymn of the goddess Bau;’ where the final -x1 
represents the genitive ending =xE—GE—KIT. 

In the combination Er(A-S1)-Lim-ma, the sign read LIM is 
really 118 =karu ‘woe’ (thus Lau and see P. 223). Hence 
ER-LIB(M)-MA must mean ‘a woful lamentation’=‘a penitential 
psalm.’ 

Line 11.— Dimmer Ap-pa-mu. Has this any connection with 
Br. 6662, DINGIR DA-mMU =‘ Bau’ and ‘Gula’ ὃ 


GLOSSARY 
A-a ‘father,’ obv. 21. A-ma ‘inundate,’ rev. 9. 
Ap-DA-Mv, with god-sign, perhaps=  A-na ‘what?’ rev. 9. 
Bau, rev. 11. Sees. v. Damvu: A-nunus-sA ‘increase,’ obv. 1-7. 
A-zaa-Ga ‘shining,’ obv. 11. See 8. v. NUNUS-SA. 


-am = A-AN, verbal suffix, obv.1-11. ἢ ‘house,’ obv. 17. 


J. DYNELEY PRINCE 


E-ai ‘lady,’ obv. 18. 

E-Ninno0, temple-name, obv. 4. 

ES ‘house,’ obv. 4. 

Eri ‘city,’ obv. 1-8, 10, 18, rev. 2, 9. 

Er-tru-ma ‘hymn,’ rev. 10. 

U-za-nr-1B, verbal prefix, rev. 8. 

U-Ba-NI-IB-TE-EN ‘annihilates,’ rey. 8. 

ὕνυ ‘when,’ obv. 10. 

Upv-ma ‘ship of light,’ obv. 6, rev. 5. 

Ur-saa-aat ‘lord, husband,’ oby. 15. 

Bapgar ‘brilliant,’ obv. 12. 

Ba-ni-1B- = verbal prefix, obv. 7. 

Bara ‘shrine,’ obv. 12. 

Ba-ra-= verbal prefix, obv. 17. 

Ba-ra-E=UD-DU ‘goeth forth,’ 
obv. 17. 

Bar ‘portion,’ obv. 1-8, 10. 

Bar-ca-TA ‘with disseminated 
plenty,’ obv. 11. 

Ba-v, with god-sign, rev. 10. 

Ba-v-x1, with god-sign and geni- 
tive sign -x1, rey, 10. 

-BI = suffix 3 p., rev. 9. 

Bir-Bir-RI ‘apportion,’ oby. 8. 

Ga ‘plenty, fulness,’ obv. 11, 16, 
17; 19; 

Ga, short for Gar ‘make,’ οὗν. 1-8. 

Gaza ‘split,’ obv. 20. 

GaL-Lu ‘to be,’ rev. 9. 

GaL-Lu-BI, with suffix =‘ to be’=‘he 
is,’ rev. 9. 

Gan ‘fruitful, obv. 6. 

Gir-su, city-name, obv. 2, 9, 11, 
rev. 3. 

Gu-La, with god-sign, obv. 17. 

Dam ‘spouse,’ obv. 15. 

Damat ‘rich, plenteous,’ obv. 19. 

Da-mu=Bau. See on rey. 11 and 
s. Ὁ. ADDAMU. 

Dim-prm ‘strengthen,’ obv. 9. 

Dimmer Lie ‘mighty divinity,’ obv. 
11. 

Dua = KA ‘speak,’ obv. 10, 18, 19. 


337 


Dot ‘dwelling,’ obv. 5. 

ΖΑ-ΟΙΝ ‘alabaster,’ obv. 9. 

Xa-Lam-a ‘destroy,’ rev. 2-6. 

-xI, sign of genitive, rev. 11. See 
8. Ὁ. Bav-x1. 

7-τ ‘noble,’ obv. 9. 

Im ‘storm,’ obv. 20. 

In-Ga-a-AN- = verbal prefix, obv. 10. 

In-Ga-a-an-puG(KA) “1 speak,’ oby. 
10. 

Κι ‘place,’ obv. 3. 

-KI, Suffix after city-names, not pro- 
nounced. See on obv. 5. 

Ki-azaa-ea ‘shining place,’ obv. 11. 

Ku ‘lordly,’ obv. 20, rev. 2-6 in 
TIK-KU-A, q. U. 

KU=-st, postposition ‘for,’ oby. 
14-15. 

Lig= ΚΑΤ, ‘strong, mighty,’ obv. 
11. 

Lim ‘woe,’ rev. 10. 

Ma ‘land,’ obv. 18. 

ΜᾺ ‘ship,’ obv. 6, rev. 5. 

Ma-at ‘be perfect,’ obv. 12-15. 

Με-α ‘to be’= EK. én, obv. 18. 

Mv =aS8u ‘in order to,’ obv. 13. 

Mov-tu ‘the one who,’ rev. 9. 

Mv-vt-.it-z, with god-sign = Bél, 
rey. 1. 

Mv-vn, verbal prefix, obv. 12-15. 

Mo-n1-1n-=verbal prefix, obv. 2-6. 

Mv-vn-ma-a ‘is perfect,’ obv. 12- 
15. 

Mv-us ‘tree,’ obv. 14. 

Morin ‘wine,’ obv. 7. 

Nam-ma-rA, verbal prefix, obv. 16. 

Nam-ma-RA-8=UD-DU ‘cometh 
forth,’ obv. 16. 

NrnA, city-name, obv. 5, rev. 6. 

Niné-aan ‘fruitful Nina,’ obv. 6, 
rev. 5. 

Nounus-sa ‘increase,’ oby. 8. Cf. on 
A-NUNUS-SA. 


338 A Hymn To THE GoppEss Bau 


Saa=aSaridu ‘leader,’ obv. 21. 


Sa-sa=DI-DI ‘going forth,’ obv. 


20. 
Sar-rA-A ‘overwhelm,’ rev. 9. 
Srpa ‘ruler,’ rev. 7, 8. 


Srr-BuR-LA, city-name, obv. 3, rev. 4. 


Sun-na, with god-sign, obv. 19. 
Rou-na ‘make firm,’ obv. 13. 
Sas ‘rive asunder,’ obv. 21. 
Sas ‘midst,’ obv. 10, 12. 

Se-1B ‘inclosure,’ obv. 3, 6. 


Srca = A-AN ‘rain,’ obv. 14. 

Su ‘hand, power,’ obv. 13. 

Sv, postposition ‘for? KU, obv. 
14-15. 

Sus-zt ‘cause to fall,’ rev. 7. 

Sus-Sus-B1 ‘cause to fall,’ rev. 8. 

Ts-EN ‘annihilate,’ rev. 7. 

TrE-EN-TE-EN ‘annihilate utterly,’ 
rev. 8. 

Tix-ku-a ‘proudly’ rev. 2-6. See 
on KU. 


THE ASSYRIAN WORD NUBATTU 


CHRISTOPHER JOHNSTON 


nn Wis goin aaa 
7 δὲ , ΚΣ ΕΣ ; iain ᾿ 
δον of vA ee ee J 
eet, εΥ 


ἢ ΩΣ am ν es ee a ; ae ΨΥ Be τὰν 


- " ᾿ 7 2. d as ἣ 
che ap ee Ν ay 
7 > eee ὲ ᾿ ᾿ ee , “tet ᾽ν» ΠΝ να 
᾿ ΄ ; ὰ 1A 
᾿ ᾿ ἢ ¥. ee =» ae ty λον ἡ eee 
μ᾿ - Ι > 5 ᾿ oo y 
᾿ 
x \ ἧς δῷ ᾿ 
ὃ = 
@ tw " 
ψ 
1 7 
¢ 4 
7 ‘ Η a ὶ J 
€ 
2 4“ Ἑ" Py t - 
- 
- 
t fe j + @ 
᾿ ) = 
. 
᾿ my 
A 
- - 
ae 
δ 
‘a 
~ 
= ι 
Ἦν ᾿ 
- - 
2) 
᾿ 
i 
~ τ 
" 
᾿Ξ 
+. 
al \ 
: Ξ 
: ¥ ine) r 
- . 
“s i x 
a . 
x ν - . 
. 
om 9 
T : 
2 
γ Χ ᾿ 
Τ᾿ u 
s * 
- 
ἢ 
5 
Ψ 
᾿ a ᾿ 
δι " 
᾿ 2 4 


THE ASSYRIAN WORD NUBATTU 
CHRISTOPHER JOHNSTON 


In my paper on “A Passage in the Babylonian Nimrod Epic,” 
published in AJSL for October, 1899 (XVI, 30 ff.), I discussed the 
word nubattu at some length; since that time much additional 
material has become accessible which, though confirming my 
interpretation of the passage then under discussion, casts new light 
upon the subject. While the noun bitu, ‘house,’ is of very com- 
mon occurrence, the verbal stem, occurring in the cognate languages 
in the meaning, ‘to pass the night, lodge,’ does not seem to have 
been recognized in Assyrian.’ It is to be found, however, in two 
instances cited in Delitzsch’s Handwérterbuch (p. 165) under the 
stem consonants MN2, where it is conjecturally defined as meaning 
‘to wallow’ (sich walzen). The first of these is from IV R, 60*, ©, 
where we read (rev. 8-9): ina rubgia abit ki alpi, ubtallil 
ki immeri ina tabaStaniia, ‘I lodge like an ox in my stall; 
like a sheep I am befouled with my excrement.’ In the parallel 
passage, IV R, 22, No. 2, 16-19, nadt is used instead of batu. 
The second instance cited by Delitzsch is to be found in IIT R, 41, 
col. II, 24, where it is said that the sufferer from the wrath of 
Ishtar, kima kalbi libta’ita ina rébit alisu, ‘shall make his 
lodging like a dog in the market-place of his city.’ As a matter 
of fact the verb is by no means rare in Assyrian, though it is only 
fair to state that nearly all the cases known to me occur in texts 
published since the appearance of Delitzsch’s Handwéorterbuch. 
In Harper’s Letters, No. 433 (= 79-7-8, 138), rev. 13-14, we 
read: mfiSu anni’u ina libbi elippi tabi’at, aninu ina 
muxxi nari nibi’at maceartasa nindgar, ‘tonight thou shalt 
pass the night in the ship, and we shall pass the night by the 
river keeping watch.’ In Part XXII (1906) of the Cuneiform 


1 Except by Mr. R. Campbell Thompson, in his Late Babylonian Letters (see pp. XXXV, 
201, 217), where the cases occurring in CT, XXII are given, and nubattu is doubtfully referred 
to this stem—“nubattum (/ba’atu?)” (p. 217). I only saw Mr. Thompson’s book after 
the completion of this paper, in which no alteration has been made, except the addition 
of this note. 


341 


842 THE AssyRIAN WorpD Νυβᾶττυ 


Texts from Babylonian Tablets, etc. in the British Museum 
(usually cited as CT), No. 18, ll. 14-16, we have minéma anaku 
aganna abata, ‘why do I stay here;’ and ibid., No, 222, ll. 6-9: 
amméni ina panika anaku u marateia ina gummi 8a 
Sipirtu abata, ‘why am I and my daughters kept waiting for a 
letter from you?’—literally, ‘why do we stay before thee in want 
of a letter?’ 

In a number of passages the verb occurs in connection with 
nubattu, always with the negative, and in all these cases the con- 
text shows that the phrase nubatta batu means ‘to spend time, 
delay.’ Four examples occur in Harper’s Letters. H. 399 
(= 67-4-2, 1), a letter from the king to Bel-ibni, omitting the 
formula of greeting, reads as follows: ina muxxi MuSezib- 
Marduk, mal imésu iterba ina paniia, xarrana ina Sépisu 
altakan; nubatti ina Ninua ul ibit. The text is written in 
Babylonian characters and Delitzsch, who discusses it, BA. 1, 
236 ff. (cf. HW, 326), reads ikit and thus misses the sense. The 
text may be rendered: ‘with regard to Mushezib-Marduk, he 
always has access to me. I have sent him on an errand;” he has 
not been delaying in Nineveh.’ Again in H. 360 (= K. 1250), 
oby. 11-16: ki *™emtqu 8a bel Sarrani beliia adi Dir-ili 
iqterba, nubatta ul ibitta, sikipti Bel arrat ilani Naba- 
bel-Sumate u belé xitu Sa ittiSu ugabbattiima ana bel Sar- 
rani beliia inamdina, ‘when the troops of the lord of kings, 
my lord, reach Dar-ili, without delay they will seize that aban- 
doned of Bel accursed of the gods, Nabi-bel-Sumate, and the vil- 
lains that are with him, and give (them) to the lord of kings, my 
lord.’ In H. 462 (= K. 1374), obv. 10-14, we have: ana *™qadé 
ana muxxielip mullu laSpura adi muxxi Saenna ixxisainu. 
UmuSa ikaSadtni, nubatta ul ibittt, elip mullu mala inam- 
Stini gabbi ana ekalli usébila, ‘I have sent to the Qadt offi- 
cials for a freight (?) ship, but they still hold back. The day they 
arrive, without any delay, as fast as the ship can go, I shall send 
all to the palace.’ In H. 833 (= K. 982), obv. 15-16: nubatta 

2 Cf. H. 110 (-- Κ. 31), oby. 14-16: Enna ina panat nisé gabbi, ki allikaina S6pi 
Sarri beliia, aggabat, ‘Lo! I was arrested before all the people, though I was going 


on the king’s errand.’ Similar cases occur elsewhere, especially in CT, XXII, where they are 
quite frequent. 


CHRISTOPHER JOHNSTON 343 


ul ibit[tu].... ana pan Sarri beliia, ‘without delay to my 
lord the king,’ though the context is mutilated, is evidently a case 
in point. A number of examples are to be found in CT, Part XXII. 
They are as follows: No. 83, ll. 9-12, qapdu qapdu, nubattum 
la tabata, V gabé Supra, ‘quickly, quickly, without delaying, 
send five men;’ and, δία. ll. 16,17, qapdu.... 8upur, nubatti 
.... 18 ibata ‘send quickly, without delay.’ No. 89, ll. 8-16, 
salNubta adi panifia] ina libbi.... tallika . nubattum 
ina paniia ul tabat, ana axiia aSapara8, ‘the woman Nubta 
has come to me in... . Without letting her delay with me, I 
shall send her to my brother.’ No. 126, ll. 18-20, Bunene-epus 
nubattum ina panikunu 1a ibata, ‘let not Bunene-epus delay 
with you.’ No. 149, ll. 33, 34, ana Bel-da’an(?) qibi batka® 
elippi ligbat nubattum la... . ibatum, ‘tell Bel-da’an( 3) 
to repair the boat without delay.’ No. 176, ll. 7, 8, maruka 
nubatti la ibata xantis likSudu, ‘let your son come quickly, 
without making any delay.’ In view of all this it seems safe to 
conclude that the noun nubattu is derived from the verb batu, 
‘to lodge, pass the night,’ etc., and as the plural nubatatum 
occurs in a contract tablet (Str. Nbn. 351, 26), it would appear to 
be a feminine form. In the passages quoted nubattu is of course 
the ‘inner object’ of the verb. Since Professor Haupt has shown 
(AJSL, XXII, 258) that M72, ‘house,’ is ultimately derived from 
the preposition 23, the primitive meaning of batu would be ‘to 
turn in,’ and nubattu would originally mean ‘a turning in,’ whence 
the secondary meanings ‘stay (in a place), delay, rest,’ etc., are 
readily deduced. Thus, in the Nimrod Epic (p. 147, 1. 301; 
Ρ. 148, 1. 319), ana Selasa KAS.BU iskunt nubattu means 
‘every 30 double leagues they took a rest,’ properly, ‘made (their 
night’s) lodging.’ 

In a number of instances nubattu signifies ‘evening,’ properly, 
‘(time of) turning in, going to rest,’ and for this meaning of the 
word the following passages may be cited: III R, 66, obv. 10d, 
ina imi Serti nubatti SumateSunu (S8ailani) tazdkar, ‘daily, 
morning and evening, thou shalt pronounce the names of the 
gods.’ H.9 (=K. 618), rev. 8, kal imi ΕἸ ὅτι nubatti, ‘every 


3For batqa. 


844 THe AssyRIAN Worp NvuBATTU 


day, morning and evening.’ H. 15 (—K. 1197), rev. 9, mfiSu 
3a imi XI KAN ina nubatti dullu, ‘on the night of the 11th, 
at evening, the work (shall be performed).’ H. 23 (= K. 602), 
oby. 18-20, fimu anni’u etapas; ina nubatti Arad-Ea ina 
gusur ekalli ippas, ‘it shall be done today; in the evening 
Arad-Ea shall do (it) on the palace roof;’ and, ibid., rev. 1, 
asdtar ina 8i’ari ina nubatti, ‘I shall write (the tablets) 
morning and evening’—i. e., I shall work at them early and late. 
H. 24 (=K. 626), rev. 11-12, the exorciser adi innasaxtni 
$i’aru nubattu ippas ‘shall perform (his incantations) morning 
and evening until (the disease) is expelled.’ In this sense, there- 
fore, nubattu is a synonym of lilatu and Simétan. 

Nubattu also occurs as the designation of a special religious 
occasion. In the hemerology for the intercalary month of Elul 
the 3d, 7th, and 16th days are designated as nubattu Marduk 
u Carpanitum (IV R, 31, 11, 28a, 210). The same was the 
case in the month of Marchesvan (ibid., 33*, 12, 28a, 21b), and 
probably in all the months, since Ashurbanapal (IX, 11) calls the 
3d of Ab the nubattu of Marduk. On these days, at night, the 
king made offering before Marduk and Sarpanit. It can hardly 
be accidental that each of these days is followed by an im AB. 
AB of Nabtii and Tashmet, divinities closely associated with 
Marduk. It is true that the 4th and 8th days are called im AB. 
AB of Naba, and only the 17th is styled the im AB.AB of Nabi 
and Tashmet (IV R, 32, 16, 39a, 31b; 33*, 16, 38a, 29b), but 
on all these occasions the king makes offering, at night, both to 
the god and his divine spouse. Light appears to be cast upon the 
aim AB.AB, aterm which Zimmern (Surpu, 8, 25) renders ‘festal 
day,’ by two texts published in Harper’s Letters. In H. 113 
(= K. 501) we read (oby. 15-17): amu IV KAN 3a arax Aru 
Nabai TaSmetum ina bit erSi eruba, ‘on the 4th of Iyar 
Naba (and) Tashmet entered the bedchamber,’ and further on 
(τον. 11-13) tému assakan, niqéSunu u[kanfi ina| pan 
Naba TasSmetum ina bit erSi, ‘I shall order their offerings to 
be placed before Nabi and Tashmet in the bedchamber.’ The text 
is somewhat mutilated, but it is clear that the sojourn of the divine 
spouses in the bedchamber began on the 4th of the month, the 


CHRISTOPHER JOHNSTON 345 


day designated in the hemerologies as an im AB.AB, that it 
lasted for some days, and that on such occasions it was customary 
to make offerings to the gods. H. 366 (= 82-5-22, 96) is more 
explicit; there (obv. 6 ff.) we read: ina 3i’ari, imu IV KAN, 
ana badi Naba u TaSmétum ina bit ersi irrubt. Umu V 
KAN Sa tissu‘ Sa Sarri usdkulfi..... istu imu V KAN 
adi amu X KAN [il]ani ina bitersisunu..... Umu XI 
KAN Naba ueea, ‘tomorrow, the 4th (of the month), Naba and 
Tashmet will enter the bedchamber. On the 5th they shall be 
given to eat of the king’s food (offering). From the 5th to the 
10th the gods (remain) in the bedchamber. On the 11th Naba 
goes forth.’ It will be noted that we have here all the essentials 
of an oriental wedding—the introduction of the bride, the refresh- 
ments offered to the newly wedded couple on the following morn- 
ing, and the seven days of the marriage feast (Judg. 14: 12, 17) 
or the “seven days of the bride” (Gen. 29: 27). With this may 
be connected the ceremony of ‘preparing the couch” of the god, 
the ritual for which is given in the text K. 164, published, in 
transliteration, in BA, II, 635. The priestess officiating at this 
ceremony was called ‘the bride” (kallatu). The ‘preparation 
of the couch” seems to have taken place on the day before the 
union of the spouses. H. 65 (= K. 629) contains an account of 
this ceremony as performed at Calah, and it is there stated (obv. 
8-10): amu IIIT KAN Sa arax Aru *!Kalxi erSu Sa Naba 
takkarar, Να θὰ ina bit erSi errab. Umu IV KAN saxarsu 
3a Nabt, ‘on the 3d of Iyar, at Calah, the couch of Nabt will be 
prepared, (and) Naba will enter the bedchamber. On the 4th 
(will take place) the ‘going about® of Naba.’ Then follows an 
account of the procession in honor of the god.” In the hemerolo- 
gies it will be observed that the 4th of the month was the im 
AB.AB of Naba (and Tashmet), while the 11th (IV R 32, 16; 
33*, 51a) is designated as Salam manzalti 5a TaSmétum 


4Written tus-su, for tait-su. Itake tatu for a contracted form of te’atu, ‘food’ 
(DHW, 697), τὰ ὅ ἃ Καὶ ἃ is 3d pers. plur.— impersonal. 

51. e., ‘procession.’ I formerly read (1. 10) GUR=taru and ‘ return,’ but GUR also = 
saxaru and this seems to suit the context better. 

6 See my Epistolary Literature of the Assyrians and Babylonians, Part I, pp. 153 ff., where 
this text is translated, and attention is called to the passage in Herodotus (i. 181) relating to 
the bedchamber of the god Bel (= Marduk) of Babylon. 


840 THe AssyRIAN Worp NuBATTU 


Carpanitum, ‘completion of the sojourn of Tashmet and Sarpanit,’ 
in exact agreement with the account given in H. 366, cited above, 
where it is said that Naba and Tashmet remain in their chamber 
until the 10th of the month, and that on the 11th Naba goes forth. 
As AB is ideogram for aptu, ‘abode,’ or bitu, ‘house, chamber,’ 
it is possible that AB.AB, whatever its Assyrian equivalent may 
be, referred to the entry of the gods into their nuptial chamber, 
and it may have been the name of some ceremony peculiar to the 
occasion. During their sojourn together there was an im AB. 
AB on the 8th of the month, marked, according to the hemero- 
logies, by the presentation of offerings at night to the divine pair 
(cf. H. 113, rev. 11-13, cited above). The fact that an im AB. 
AB also occurred on the 17th of the month’ probably indicates 
that on this day the god paid a second visit to his spouse. 

The close connection of the nubattu with the im AB.AB 
has already been pointed out. Hach im AB.AB of Nabti and 
Tashmet immediately follows a nubattu of Marduk and Sarpanit; 
both occasions were marked by nocturnal offerings to the divine 
spouses; and the 11th of the month is the Salam manzalti not only 
of Tashmet, but of Sarpanit as well. All this would seem to indi- 
cate that the occasions were of a similar nature, and that Marduk 
and Sarpanit came together every month in the same way as Nabi 
and Tashmet. In Arabic bata means not only ‘to pass the night, 
lodge,’ but also ‘to marry’ and, although in Assyrian no instance 
of the use of the verb in this sense is known to me, it is possible 
that nubattu may here mean the ‘(nuptial) sojourn’ of Marduk 
with his spouse. Perhaps, however, it is safer to render nubattu 
Marduk u Carpanitum, ‘the evening of Marduk and Sarpanit,’ 
where nubattu would have about the same meaning as German 
Feierabend. Special ceremonies doubtless marked such occasions, 
and the term nubattu probably designated both the occasion and 
the attending ceremonial. In any case it should be noted that 
the occasion pertained specially to the cult of Marduk who is 
styled bel nubatti in Maqla 2, 157-58; 7, 18-19. The question 


7I. e., a week after the 10th day which completed the wedding week. Lane, Manners 
and Customs of the Modern Egyptians (5th ed., London, 1871), II, 241, states that, in Egypt, 
custom required the husband to refrain from visiting his bride for a week after the com- 
pletion of their marriage. 


CHRISTOPHER JOHNSTON 347 


naturally arises whether the weddings of the gods were celebrated 
every month, which at first sight seems unlikely, or whether the 
spouses were merely brought together monthly, the outward forms 
of a wedding being observed in order to symbolize the nature of 
the event. On the other hand the solar character of Marduk is 
well known, while the name of Sarpanit, “the silvery bright one,”* 
may well indicate that she was originally a moon goddess, and the 
monthly marriage of the sun and moon would be altogether appro- 
priate.’ The occurrence of the first nubattu, marking the begin- 
ning of the wedding week, on the 3d of the month, near the time 
of the monthly conjunction of the sun and moon, would seem to 
favor this view. An interesting parallel is to be found in Greek 
mythology, where the marriage of Helios and Selene, who like 
Sarpanit was a goddess of matrimonial fertility, is represented as 
occurring at the time of the new moon; and the ἱερὸς γάμος of 
these divinities appears to have been dramatically represented at 
the Eleusinian Mysteries.” 

The well-known passage II R, 32, 12, 18 αὖ (+ CT, XVIII, 
pl. 23, ll. 12, 13) reads as follows: 
[am] ki—is—pi bu—ub-bu—lum 
aim nu-bat-ti: do (ie. tim kispi) tim i-dir-ti: do (i.e. bubbulum) 
These expressions need not, however, be taken as exact equivalents, 
they need only be synonyms in so far as they coincide in some 
particular point or points. Um kispi means a day upon which 
food offerings were made to the shades of the dead. I have already 
discussed this term in AJSL, XVI, 33-36, and to the examples 
there given may be added Zimmern, Bab. Relig., No. 52 where 
kispé are offered to the family ghosts (ekimme kimti). As 
Jasirow has pointed out (Religion of Babylonia and Assyria, 
p. 581), such offerings were made not merely from motives of 
piety, but to deprecate the ill-will of the dead." Since Om nubatti 
appears here as a synonym of im kispi, it must have had some 
connection with the cult of the dead, and this probably lies in the 


8 See Jastrow, Religion of Babylonia and Assyria, pp. 121 ff. 

91 owe this suggestion to Dr. Jastrow. 

10See Roscher, Uber Selene und Verwandtes, pp. 75 ff., where other parallels are cited, 

11 With regard to the ekimmé or spirits of the dead, see Thompson, Devils and Evil 
Spirits, I, xxvii ff. 


848 THe ASSYRIAN WorD NuBATTU 


fact that offerings to the dead formed an important part of the 
nubattu ceremonial. In this sense an im nubatti would also 
be an tim kispi. It should be borne in mind that Marduk, who 
is styled bel nubatti, is also called Sar aSipati (Maqla, loc. cit. 
sup.) and bel a8ipaiti (IV R, 49, 60, 70a; 56, 13b), the king 
or lord of the a3ipu rite, which included the exorcism and pro- 
pitiation of the shades of the dead. Moreover, Marduk was ‘the 
merciful. one who loves to quicken the dead’ (IV R, 29, 24), ‘the 
ruler of dead and living,” and his nubattu would thus be a par- 
ticularly appropriate occasion for the offering of kispé. 

Jensen has shown (Kosmologie, 91, 106, 502) that bubbulu 
was the term applied to the day or days of the moon’s dis- 
appearance at the end of the lunar month. In a single passage 
bubbulu seems to be brought into connection with the 30th day 
of the month. IV R, 23, col. I, 3-4, we have: Nusku mar 
3ela3é bubbulu (= UD. XXX. KAN UD. NA. A. AN), but what 
this means is by no means clear. Mar selasé seems here to be 
an epithet of Nusku, but the connection of bubbulu is obscure. 
On the other hand, the bubbulu of Sin certainly fell upon the 
29th of the month. In the hemerologies for Second Elul (IV R, 
88, 45b) and for Marchesvan (IV R, 33*, 39d) the 29th day is 
designated as bubbulu 3a Sin; in Knudtzon’s Gebete (No. 43, 
oby. 2, 3) the 29th of Sivan is called im bubbuli Sa arxi annt; 
and in the astrological report in IV R, 58, No. 14, the bubbulu 
of Sin falls upon the 29th” apparently of Kislev. The Babylonian 
months contained either twenty-nine or thirty days, the actual 
number in each case being determined by observation,” and the 
fim Sela8é, the day marking the completion of a full month of 
thirty days would seem to have been observed as a festival of im- 
portance. In a text cited by Bezold, in his review of Briinnow’s 
Revised List (ZA, IV, 433), Sin is called 1] UD. XXX (Se-la- 
Su-u) KAN, ‘the god of the thirtieth day,’ and in an incantation 
published in King’s Magic and Sorcery (No. 1, p. 8) we read 


2Must6sir mitu ἃ baltu (King, Magic and Sorcery, No. 6,99; No. 10,8). 


13 Pinches’ Texts (No.2, oby. 4) and in Thompson’s Reports (No. 85, obv. 4) the day is given 
as XXIV KAN, but in IV R, 58, No. 14 itis XXIX KAN, in agreement with the other passages 
cited above. 


14See Thompson’s Reports of the Magicians and Astrologers, II, xix-xxii. 


CHRISTOPHER JOHNSTON 349 


(oby. 16-18): Sin sapa E.KUR igallikama tamét ilani 
tanddin, bubbulu im tamétika piristi ilani rabtiiti; im 
SelaSé isinnaka, tim tasilti ilfitika, ‘Sin, glorious one of 
Ekur, they question thee and thou givest the utterance of the 
gods. The bubbulu is the day of thy uttering the mystery of 
the great gods; the thirtieth day is thy festival, the day of joy of 
thy godhead.’ The two occasions are here contrasted, not coin- 
cident. That the bubbulu did not coincide with the tim selasé 
is also shown by Surpu 8, 25-26, and King’s Magic and Sorcery 
No. 61, 11-12, where nubattu, im AB.AB, bubbulu and tim 
Selasé are enumerated as separate and distinct days. As a matter 
of fact, the moon’s invisibility at the end of the lunar month lasts 
for several days, but in practice the Babylonians appear to have 
fixed upon the 29th as the bubbulu of Sin, and it is evidently 
an occasion of special solemnity. It was, as we have just seen, 
the day on which the oracle of Sin was consulted, and it was the 
day on which the Igigi and Anunnaki fell down in adoration 
(inneSeru) before the god (IV R, 33, 46))." On this solemn 
occasion Sin was doubtless regarded as being in closer touch with 
the spirit world, if he did not actually visit the realm of the dead, 
with whose cult the Anunnaki were certainly connected,” and the 
offering of kispé would here again be most appropriate. It is 
significant, as Jensen has pointed out (Kosmologie, 502), that a 
bubbulu of Nergal, the lord of the dead, occurred on the 28th 
of Second Elul (IV R, 33, 336), and it may also be noted that the 
28th of Marchesvan (IV R, 33*, 28d) was the bubbulu of Adad, 
a god closely connected with both Sin and Nergal.” 

The expression fim idirti, ‘day of mourning,’ or ‘day of sor- 
row,’ given in our text as a synonym of tim kispi, im nubatti, 
and bubbulu, would seem to be properly a descriptive epithet 
applied to these days, in allusion to their connection with the cult 
of the dead. 


15 Cf. the hymn to Sin IV R, 9,57,60: katu amatka ina Samé izzakarma, Igigi 
appa ildbingi; katu amatka ina ergitim izzakarma, Anunnaki qaqqaru 
unasSaqt. 


16See Morgenstern, ‘‘The Doctrine of Sin in the Babylonian Religion,” Mittheilungen 
der V. A. Gesellschaft, 1905, 3, pp. 93, 116, 117. 


17 Jastrow, Religion, pp. 158, 159, 163, 164. 


A MS OF ABU HIFFAN’S COLLECTION OF 
ANECDOTES ABOUT ABU NUWAS 


DUNCAN B. MACDONALD 


ἦν 
ἣν 


αν Yak: eee 
a) PONT SO 


ΕΣ 
᾿ 
ὧι 
Ἦν. 
v ΐ , 
Ἢ ca 
ἡ 
᾿ 
᾿ 
< 
, 
4 
f 
- 
i 
Ned 
x ig 
‘7 
Ἀ᾿ 
ὩΣ 
ae, \ " 
ὧν 
4 
‘ ᾿ «ὦ 
‘J 7 


A MS OF ABU HIFFAN’S COLLECTION OF ANECDOTES 
ABOUT ABU NUWAS 


Duncan B. MacponaLp 


In the Catalogue @une collection de manuscrits arabes et turcs 
appartenant ἃ la maison E. J. Brill ἃ Leide, now in the library 
of Princeton University, one MS (no. 171, p. 27) is entered thus: 
lan sl χοίί : || Contes du temps de Haroun ar-Rachid. (677)|| 
Belle écriture. 41 feuillets.” This would suggest a tale of the 
Arabian Nights type, with Aba Hiffan as hero. As a matter of 
fact it is a collection of anecdotes about Abi Nuwas, each contain- 
ing an extract or extracts from his poems, and each introduced by 
dls ys . . There is no title, colophon, or date, but the accom- 
panying photographic reproductions will show the character of the 
collection and may give a clue to the date of the manuscript. 

In the limited apparatus of MS catalogues accessible to me I 
can find no other trace of this book or of any other book of Abit 
Hiffan. It seems to be a wnicwm both of work and author. But 
there can be little question as to the identity of either. The 
Fihrist gives both, and from references in the Aghdani and else- 
where it is evident that Aba Hiffan was a prominent literary 
figure in the Baghdad of the middle of the third century of the 
Hijra. That the date of his death was unknown was probably 
Ibn Khallikan’s reason for not including him among his a‘yan, 
and the same reason may have operated elsewhere. 

His full name was Abi Hiffan ‘Abdullah b. Ahmad Ὁ. Harb 
al-Mihzami. In the short article on him in the Fihrist (p. 144, 
1. 26) he is given a place among the muhdath poets, and called 
a hander-down of stories and poems and an author of collections 
(akhbari, rawiya, musannif). Of his books are given The 
Book of Four on the Stories of the Poets and The Book of the Art 
of Poetry; the latter is called large, and a part had been seen by 
an-Nadim. But in the article (p. 160) on Abi Nuwas (d. a. Η. 200) 
the stories about him and a selection of his poems are said to have 

303 


8584 ANECDOTES ABOUT Αβῦ NuwAs 


been edited (‘amila) by Aba Hiffan. This work may have been 
a part of the Book of Four, and is plainly our MS. 

The following are the other references to him in the Fvhrist. 
P.116: He knew al-Fath Ὁ. Khaqan (killed 247), al-Jahiz (d. 255), 
and Isma‘il b. Ishaq the Qadi (d. 282), and noted their common 
love for books. P. 125: He corresponded and exchanged satires 
with Abiw-l-“Ayna’ (d. 280 odd). P. 129: Muhammad Ὁ. Da’ad 
(killed 296) wrote a Book of Four in imitation of that of Abu 
Hiffan. P. 143: Aba Ahmad Yahya b. ‘Ali (d. 300), one of the 
Al al-Munajjim and a Mu'tazilite theologian who held a majlis 
much attended by theologians, included him in his Kitab al-bahir 
on stories of poets of both the Umayyad and “Abbasid Dynasties. 
According to Mas‘idi (Muruj, VIII, 225) Aba Hiffan composed 
laudatory verses on another member of this family, ‘Ali b. Yahya, 
brother of Abi-l-Hasan Ahmad b. Yahya, known as Ibn an-Nadim 
the Mu'‘tazilite. The information in the Fihrist (p. 143) on the 
Al al-Munajjim has not enabled me to disentangle the exact rela- 
tionship here. 

In the Nuzha al-alibba of Muhammad al-Anbari (d. 577) is 
the only other formal notice (pp. 267 ff. of lithog. of Cairo, 1294) 
of Abi Hiffén which I have found. But it informs us only that 
he was a pupil of al-Asma‘i, that δ)" WP eye was his rawi, 
and adds two anecdotes illustrating his readiness in improvising 
epigrammatic verses. 

In the preface by Hamza b. al-Hasan (or ‘Ali b. Hamza) al- 
Isbahani to his recension of the diwan of Aba Nuwias, he quotes 
Abit Hiffan once only. On page 15 of the Cairo edition of 1898 
he gives on his authority a story of how al-‘Attabi (? Abi ‘Amr 
Kulthim, d. 208), after he turned to religion, forbade the reciting 
of the poems of Abi Nuwas, and how he was grievously deceived 
on one occasion. 

Ibn Khallikan also refers to him once, telling (Biogr. Dict., 
I, 68) how he satirized the Mu’tazilite Chief Qadi Ibn Abi Duwad. 
De Slane adds (p. 73, note 29) a reference to the Khatib’s History 
of Baghdad; but from that we learn only that he was born at al- 
Basra. The date of his death is not given. 

Yaqit (Geogr. Dict.) has two references. In III, 932, he quotes 


Duncan B. ΜΑΟΡΟΝΑΙΡ 855 


from him a line referring to the Day of Fayf ar-rif, and IV, 306, 
a story handed down from Abi Mu‘adh, brother of Abi Nuwas. 

In the Aghani there are several references, but these are of 
value only as showing the circles in which he moved and who 
were his contemporaries. In Vol. II, p. 179, is a report from Abi 
Hiffan of how he had been present one day at a somewhat festive 
majlis of one of the chiefs of the Turks, who amused the company 
by the queer names under which he called for certain songs. In 
Vol. IV, p. 92, is another report of how he was present on a graver 
oceasion when Ibn al-‘Arabi (d. 231) misquoted a verse badly, 
gave it the wrong author, and explained it absurdly in defense of 
his misquotations; on all which Aba Hiffan comments acidulously. 
In Vol. VI, p. 18, Aba Hiffan recounts a long, unsavory, but 
evidently well-known anecdote, directly from Husayn b. ad-Dah- 
hak (of frequent mention in the Aghdni; ἃ. under al-Muntasir or 
al-Musta‘in [247-51] at almost 100 years of age) of what befell 
the latter with al-Hasan Ὁ. Sahl anda ghulam of his. In Vol. IX, 
p. 88, how Aba Hiffan brought to Hariin ar-Rashid (d. 193) a 
slave girl, and the trouble that followed in Harin’s harem with 
Zubayda. Here Abu Hiffan, in rearing and training a promising 
slave girl, plays apparently the same part as is ascribed to Ishaq 
b. Ibrahim al-Mawsili, 6. g., in the Yakhri, p. 183 of Cairo edition. 
In Vol. XI, p. 2, is a very pointed comment on the poems of the 
Al Abi Hafga. They began as hot water and gradually cooled 
until those of Mutawwaj, the last of the house, were frozen. In 
Vol. XVII, p. 7, is the story of a threatened hija-warfare between 
Abi Hiffan and Sa‘id b. Humayd, and how it was averted. Finally, 
in Vol. XX, p. 65, is a Rabelaisean anecdote from him, of ἃ majlis 
at which he was present. It has no dating value. 

The photographic reproductions of the first three pages may 
now be left to speak for themselves. The anecdotes are of the 
social literary type common in the Aghdni and of the character we 
should expect in connection with Abi Nuwas. It may be doubted 
whether much of historical or literary value could be squeezed 
from them. But the book seems genuine, is apparently unique, 
and deserves at least to have attention called to it. It should cer- 
tainly be used by any future editor of the diwadn of Aba Nuwas. 


356 


ANECDOTES ABOUT ABU NuwWAS 
1 
ΟΣ 
οΝἱ Mins οὐ ον Pes aay! 
Cyl ase Y neh 1M Fp bl ue peg 
Ge bGgsit ὦ ab AE pemagle ered oF. 
CON iy potevad Dba Ger δῶ ΣΟ» 
6 med ges Eb ol ipa foe 
“pe SNA Say = 453! bye Wosacs., 
ὧν ἐεαβοινίθαυ Kb aos celal 
be ΗΘ Upped publ bs 
Speer ee LECT Losbp ley) 
Dalene ins! Rk bay leas 
Cs ae deal Laschaaalasl 
Cots by Gall iiss iilban ly 
See deli αὐ lbs bya 
sbi pindo ty! λυ 
pl Milas Pe dale Δ. 
wpa pal hee ld th 
2. DS io leash shell 
SS lbin re robelalplobloisys 
Spm Gpebdion ce Hands 
SRD SS ald ob Sel 


Duncan B. Macponatp 


2 
MWA peel nelore seg Loin = 2 
SG lian ge ας 
da bplan διύρυον diss bene wy 9's ile 
MeL lineal ys ἱρά at5 5 oI 
6 AES ole 


ota bl 4 ris Sd νι δι 
ody gills Coy 2snttathey 
seed Bovtvottisle ali 
Ma ρας, κυ! οι, geurcouslsl as 
CAM 25s ΡΟ ΣΆ 
γον αν δῶ pangs lays 
Pde And Le 
Soe asbebs epee su, 
pase) Ged ial 
re nkn ss Cebus |e, 
HN yilNs aecbose OAS 6 Veo Lon bl 
CF Ales acess gah Ub 

wees l all its any error lbl 
Sing My 2 erval, 
Piglar Wot her yh Se 
doll ας ses) ΣΑΣ el te3 


357 


358 


ANECDOTES ABouT ABU NuwAs 
3 

6 cam ga 8! able 
Le nline bse ριον 
shi) agltldtsup A Galllsles Θιογῦ 
Laps SSM oem ndendesrcty |e 
(ρῶς, deer ylilapsl 
SiepsShay, soca scl sy 
Ue ceelsbLbifeil gueshl 
SMa rds 55 tay! Liles by 
SEU Gas uiivlSo sepa 

ΑΝ 2)" 5.» edhe δὰ 
PP Marsh Ul AV AII2 ον. 
LIL Mls ee SIO Us 

A lense blaine Ws beg! 
USI Ao eer das bags λον 
Pahl parle) oS We) ply 99) 
. ne ics \s eels 
Whizabbol nis eda base 
tres Shbhinin blah 
δύ νὰ bax i Blobs δ 
ὩΣ PeMiagy)3) lds 96 Olea 
AMA shesy eile Saba 

ὧν 


THE CYLINDER AND CONE SEALS IN THE 
MUSEUM OF THE HERMITAGE, 
ST. PETERSBURG 


WILLIAM HAYES WARD 


ΩΝ 


i : ἵ ο Lae 


THE CYLINDER AND CONE SEALS IN THE MUSEUM 
OF THE HERMITAGE, ST. PETERSBURG 


WiLt1am λυ Warp 


By the good kindness of M. E. Pridix, chief trustee of the 
Department of Antiquities, in the Hermitage, St. Petersburg, I 
have been allowed to receive plaster casts of all the cylinder and 
other seals from Babylonia, Assyria, and the neighboring regions, 
which belong to the treasures of the Hermitage Museum at St. 
Petersburg, with the privilege of publishing such of them as I 


Fic. 1.—The Hermitage 


choose, in the work I have been preparing, now practically com- 
pleted, on the subject of the cylinder seals for the Carnegie Insti- 
tution. I have thus received casts of nearly two hundred cylinder 
and other seals, Assyrian and Sassanian. A very few of these 
had previously been published, particularly by M. Lajard, in his 
Culte de Mithra, published in 1847, but other interesting seals 
have never yet seen the light. 

Of these latter, one of the most peculiar is shown in Fig. 1. 
It is about 88 mm. in height, and 23 mm. in diameter. It is thus 
a rather large and stout cylinder, of the size that prevailed at or 
before the time of the Elder Sargon. It gives us a design, not 

361 


362 SEALS IN THE HERMITAGE MUSEUM 


unknown, but yet infrequent, of a god and a goddess standing 
each on a so-called “dragon”? which has the head and the body, 
wholly or in part, of a lion, with the wings and the tail of an eagle. 
There is a second scene, however, in which a god, naked like Gil- 
gamesh, but with a god’s high headdress, and in profile, on one 
knee, grasps a bull by the horn. But what is peculiar is, that the 
field above is occupied by four additional dragons, each repre- 
sented as walking downward. They seem to have no special refer- 
ence to the three deities figured on the cylinder. 


Fie. 2,—The Hermitage 


I have said that cylinders which show us the deities thus related 
to dragons are infrequent. A museum is fortunate that has one 
or two among a thousand selected cylinders. 

These cylinders show two types, the one in which the male god 
rides in a chariot, and the other in which the two deities stand 
each on the dragon between its wings. Of the first type, by far 
the finest specimen is that shown in Fig. 2, and first published by 
me in the American Journal of Semitic Languages and Litera- 
tures, Vol. XIV, pp. 94-105. It is very archaic, and of shell. 
The god rides in a chariot with four solid wheels (without spokes), 
and brandishes a whip. He is decently clothed, but the goddess, 
who stands between the wings of the dragon drawing the chariot, 
is unclad, and lifts thunderbolts in each hand. Before these 


WILLIAM Hayes Warp 363 


deities stands a worshiper who pours out a libation about an altar 
of the most archaic form, having a step, or shelf to hold an offer- 
ing, while other offerings, perhaps cakes or loaves, are on the top 
of the altar. 


Fie. 3.—Berlin Museum 


Only one other cylinder is to be found in the museums, in which 
the god is drawn by a dragon harnessed to a chariot. It is thus 
shown in Fig. 3. Again the chariot has four solid wheels. 

In other cases either the god alone stands on the dragon between 
its wings, or there are two dragons, and the goddess stands on the 
second dragon, as in Fig. 1. The finest one of this type is shown 
in Fig. 4, and it resembles the cylinder from the Hermitage, in 
that it has the two scenes, although it lacks the goddess on the 


Fic. 4.—British Museum 


dragon. But she appears in quite a different rdle; as the goddess 
who controls the storm, as in Fig. 2, she carried the thunderbolts. 
She happens to stand over the kneeling god who stabs the bull 
with a short dagger, which makes it clear that the god in Fig. 1 
holds a dagger, although the worn cylinder does not make this 


364 SEALS IN THE HERMITAGE MusEUM 


clear. The god standing on the dragon carries a whip and a club 
in one hand, while the other probably holds a cord attached to a 
ring in the nose of the dragon, which may be regarded as illustra- 
ting the question of Yahveh to Job, 41:1, 2: 

Canst thou draw Leviathan with a fish-hook? 

Or press down his tongue with a cord? 

Canst thou put a rope into his nose? 

Or pierce his jaw through with a hook? 
What Job could not do the god can do; and on the later cylinders 
it is not unusual to see Adad leading a bull by a cord through its 
nose. On this seal we also see the water poured out from one of 


Fig. 5.—British Museum 


the ‘‘bottles of heaven” (Job 38:37). There is also an illegible 
inscription in linear characters. 

One other illustration may be given of the deities on a dragon. 
It is seen in Fig. 5. Here the god has one foot lifted, much in 
the attitude and dress of Shamash climbing the mountains of sun- 
rise. He has a curved weapon, a sort of scimitar, as also does the 
third deity who stands between the two dragons. The nude god- 
dess carries a thunderbolt in each hand. 

There are but two other cylinders known which are of this 
type, and they are both very rude, and they add nothing. But 
there are two or three other cylinders of a somewhat later date, 
of about the time of Gudea, in which a goddess (without the god, 
and no longer nude, but fully clad in a flounced garment) sits 
on a dragon or stands on two small dragons. 

A point of difference to be noticed between these figures of the 
dragon is the fact that in some cases what may be the tongue pro- 
trudes from the mouth, although sometimes the appearance is as 
if the creature were vomiting. That it is a divided tongue may 


WILLIAM Hayes Warp 365 


be gathered from Gudea, Cyl. A 26; 24:25 (Thureau-Dangin, Die 
sumerischen und akkadischen Kénigs-inschriften, p. 119): “A 
monster, a dragon with its tongue hanging out... . ” 

The god and goddess here represented as in triumph over the 
dragon, or dragons can hardly be Marduk and Zarpanit, although 
it is doubtless Marduk who fights the dragon in the later Assyrian 
bas-reliefs and seal cylinders. But these cylinders we are consid- 
ering belong to a period much earlier than the emergence of Mar- 
duk as the chief champion of the gods, at the time of the sove- 
reignty of Babylon under Hammurabi. At an earlier period Enlil, 


Fic. 6.—The Hague Museum 


of Nippur, occupied this réle, and earlier still as King has shown, 
Ea was the champion who fought for the gods. We may then 
consider these deities as Enlil and his consort Belit, or even as Ha 
and Damkina. The fact that two dragons are represented, one 
with the god and one with the goddess, may doubtfully suggest 
that Tiamat in the myth was accompanied by her consort Kingu. 
But we can by no means be assured that the myth as we have it in 
literary form is precisely what is here represented. Indeed, in 
the later Assyrian art the dragon was distinctly masculine. It may 
have been Apsu, the god of the Deep, who was represented by 
the dragon, at least originally, when Ea was in the conflict. As 
here we have the god, very likely Enlil, riding in the chariot on 
land, so in extremely archaic art we have a god riding on a sea 
monster who takes the form of a boat, and who may be Ka, as in 
Fig. 6. 

The Hermitage cylinder, Fig. 1 has six dragons. What the 
supernumerary dragons mean I hardly venture to conjecture. 
They may be the monsters who accompanied Tiamat, or they 
may be simply duplications to fill up the vacant spaces. 


866 SEALS IN THE HERMITAGE MUSEUM 


Another peculiar, even unique, design which appears on one 
of the cylinders in the collection of the Hermitage, is shown in 


Fic. 7.—The Hermitage 


Fig. 7. The design showing a culprit, or prisoner, half man and 
half bird, brought by force into the presence of the sun-god for 
judgment and punishment, is not unfamiliar, although it is of early, 
and nearly the earliest, antiquity. This more usual form we see in 
Fig. 8, except that it is very rare to see the god seated in the 
boat in which he sails through the heavens. But in the present 


Eg ar 
\ 


Fig. 8.—Metropolitan Museum 


case instead of the bird-man, the upper part human, and the lower 
part probably an eagle, we have the head of a lion, and the body 
human, unless the feet are those of a lion. This lion-man is not 


WILLIAM Hayes WARD 367 


unknown elsewhere, and appears to be related to Nergal. We 
have a myth of the eagle punished for his crime in slaying the 
young of the serpent, but any myth which precisely represents the 
capture and the trial of the eagle before Shamash is not known 
to us, and much less one in which the lion is thus brought to 
trial. But the earliest cylinders that are found on hematite, and 
which may be as old as Sargon I, yet hardly of the most archaic 
period, represent sometimes the lion and sometimes a dragon 
devouring a man who is kneeling and unresisting, as in Fig. 9. 
So far as it is the dragon, here considered as one of the evil spirits, 
who is guilty of this offense, we might, but not very confidently, 


Fic. 9.—Metropolitan Museum 


conjecture that it was for this crime that he was subdued by the 
god as shown in the cylinders first considered; and it is possible 
that it is the lion thus culpable who is punished in this Hermitage 
cylinder. But in such scenes as Fig. 9 in which the lion and the 
dragon appear as powers hostile to man, it is quite as likely that 
we see those evil spirits called utukku, gallu, lubartu, etce., 
against which so many magic incantations were directed, and 
which are sometimes described as lions. It is well to include here 
Fig. 10, from the cylinders of the Hermitage, although it was long 
ago published by Lajard, Culte de Mithra, PIP RX: 2s We 
have seated Shamash, with streams and fish, and the bird-man, 
usual to this design. But this is one of the rare cases in which 
the officer who brings the culprit is bifrons, one face looking 
respectfully toward the god, while the other turns to watch his 
prisoner. The bifrons is found mainly on cylinders of this age, 
although it appears in one or two cases on Hittite cylinders which 


368 SEALS IN THE HERMITAGE MUSEUM 


represent the presentation of the dead soul to the god of Hades. 
Menant is right in regarding the bifrons as a convention occa- 
sionally employed to indicate that the officer leading the prisoner 
is both paying attention courteously to the god, and at the same 
time watching the prisoner behind him. In this cylinder we 
have another curious feature; the last figure carries a bag over 
his shoulder, much as Perseus carries the head of Medusa. We 
may regard him as bringing an offering, but this is hardly likely. 
On a seal in my possession a corresponding figure brings to the 


By WY 


Fic. 10.—The Hermitage 


god the bird-man, slung by the feet from a stick on his shoulder. 
It is quite as likely that in the myth the bag had something to do 
with the capture of the bird-man. 

For the inscription, and foran element in the design, it is well 
to call attention to Fig. 11, of another cylinder of the Hermitage. 
Here we have the not unusual scene of the seated god receiving a 
worshiper led to him by his attendant goddess. What is unusual 
is that before the seated god there stands a rampant goat, which 
looks as if leaping into the god’s lap, or, it may be, in an attitude 
of worship. It is not unusual to have a small indeterminate 
animal which looks like a short-tailed monkey or jackal in front 
of a seated god, but such a case as this would suggest that in 
these cases the animal is a goat. In several cases of cylinders as 
old as Gudea, or older, we see a bull in the same attitude which 
suggests that then the seated god is thus indicated to be Sin. We 


WILLIAM Hayrs Warp 369 


do not know that the goat is particularly associated with any god; 
but the goat-fish and the ram are peculiar to Ea, and it may be 
that Ea is here designated. The form of the seated god is con- 
ventional for various gods, as Shamash, Ningirsu, etc. 

It will be observed that as the goat stands next to the god, so 
a bird like a crane, or goose, or stork, stands next to the goddess. 
This bird is frequently attached to Bau on the earlier large cylin- 
ders; but it is not likely that this is Bau, unless the god is Nin- 
girsu. But it is not usual, I think, for Bau to take the inferior 


SS, = 
Hh J; - : 
τιν ἂς 


ὑπ AK UU AN 


= Δ TM ΠΠΠῚ} oar wis) ee 


Fig. 11.—The Hermitage 1 


role of attendant to her consort. She seems to be, like Ishtar, of 
a primary rank. 

A cylinder of the most archaic period we have in Fig. 12. On 
these cylinders no form of writing is to be expected. They are 
often, as in this case, long and of narrow diameter, and in two or 
even three registers. The designs are few and simple. In this 
case we have the two deities, who cannot be identified, but who 
are probably the god and his wife, seated and facing each other. 
Between them we often have a stand with a vase on it from which 
they drink through a long tube. Occasionally there is a gate near 
them. This hardly looks like a gate and may be a sort of rude 
altar. Before one of the deities stands a nude worshiper. The 
birdlike form of the heads is characteristic of the early period. 

1 The five-line inscription reads as follows: 


1Hv-UKU-ILI 2paTEsI of Mash, 3governor of Madka, ‘since he crushed 5Unu, the 
servant of Zimi.—PRICE. 


370 SEALS IN THE HERMITAGE MUSEUM 


The lower register shows one of the other frequent designs on 
these archaic seats. It is a monstrous eagle, which may have the 


Fig. 12.—The Hermitage 


head of a lion, seizing with each of its talons an animal, here an 
ibex. The fabulous bird was developed into what has been 
recognized by Heuzey as the eagle of Lagash, and which appears 
on the standard of that city. It probably had the Sumerian name 
of IM-GIG, as shown by Thureau-Dangin. 


τ ἢ ae 


Fia. 13.—The Hermitage 


WULLSSss 


y 


In Fig. 13, we have an unusually complete illustration of the 
elements to be found in the cylinders of an early, but not usually 


WiuuraAmM Hayes WARD ote 


the earliest, period, belonging to the Gilgamesh type. We have 
Gilgamesh in front view, repeated, also the human-headed bull 
against which he fights, and also Kabani fighting a lion. There 
is also a small figure of the worshiper, with space above it for a 
single name, but unoccupied. When Gilgamesh and Eabani are 
both represented on a cylinder Eabani fights the lion, while Gilga- 
mesh attacks the more dangerous bull, or the human-headed bull. 
In the later cylinders of this type, of the period of Sargon I, the 
bull is the huge water buffalo of Southern Babylonia, now found 
there, and at its best, only in domestication; while on the earlier 


Fic. 14.—The Hermitage 


cylinders the bull is the equally dangerous bison of the forests 
of Elam. 

One of the most characteristic scenes which we meet in the 
early cylinders is shown in Fig. 14. The sun-god Shamash comes 
out from the gates of the morning and, with his hand resting on 
one mountain, steps his foot on another. The two porters turn 
the head back as if to receive the worshiper who brings a goat in 
sacrifice. This differs from the cylinders of the type only in that 
the weapon carried by the god is not the usual notched sword, but 
a sort of dagger, perhaps. The notched sword recalls the earliest 
stone period, when the weapon of wood was fitted with flint teeth. 
The rays about the god mounting the hills do not often appear, 
although sometimes shown as here. 

One of the most puzzling cylinders in the museum of the Her- 


372 SEALS IN THE HERMITAGE MuUsEUM 


mitage is seen in Fig. 15. Here we have a figure who appears to 
be Gilgamesh in the astonishing attitude of carrying a goat as 
offering to a goddess who stands, not on two lions as might have 
been expected, but on two long-necked animals which might be 
those which belong to Marduk and Nebo. This animal is a winged 
composite creature, a sort of dragon, but very different from the 
dragon we have been considering, and has, as M. Heuzey has 
shown, the head of a serpent. It appears on seals that are as old 
as Gudea, and thus older than the emergence of Marduk and Nebo 
as principal gods, though later identified with them. It may 


ἘΞ ΕΠ Ps 
1 if 
Oi 

ntl 

ttl 

NT 

(MAN 
aoe ee 


Fig. 15.—The Hermitage 


originally have belonged to Ningirsu and Ningishzida, and been 
transferred when their worship ceased to prevail. 

If I may judge from the cast this cylinder is genuine, and the 
composition does not suggest forgery; but beside the unusual 
animals on which one goddess is standing, and the strange appear- 
ance of Gilgamesh in the attitude of a worshiper, it is also very 
unusual to see the breasts of the four goddesses en face so clearly 
modeled. And it is not possible to recognize any one of the god- 
desses, except the one in profile at the left. She has the conven- 
tional attitude of the subordinate goddess who represents frequently 
Aa, wife of Shamash, or Shala when figured with her consort 
Ramman. There are goddesses in plenty who might be repre- 
sented by the other figures, but hardly such principal goddesses 
as Ishtar, Bau, or Gula. 

Fig. 16 a, b, c, has an interest because of the shape of the 
cylinder, which, instead of the usual longitudinal perforation for 


WILLIAM HayEes Warp 819 


the wire or cord by which it was suspended, has the end extended 
to form a stone handle, with the perforated hole across the end. 
We never find this shape in the Babylonian cylinders, but it is 
found occasionally in the Hittite cylinders, and 
was sometimes borrowed from that region for 
Assyrian cylinders such as this seems to be. This 
cylinder, which is not very carefully engraved, 
illustrates the new elements that came into use 
when the Assyrian style prevailed. We have here 
the winged disk of Ashur, although by a confusion 
of thought it sometimes represented Shamash, 
the sun. In place of the extended hand of the 
human-bodied gods, this winged disk has what 
in the more elaborate examples is a cord, reach- 
ing outward from under the wings, 
and which is grasped by the wor- = 
shiper. This may be compared Ἐτα. 164 
with the rays ending in hands from = ™"° He™mitase 
the sun-disk as worshiped by its Egyptian Heretic 
King. Also quite new in the Assyrian period is the 
protecting spirit, or genius, clad in the skin of a fish which forms 
a sort of cap or helmet for his head. Equally new is the protect- 
ing spirit to the left, whose wings had probably a northern or 


Fia. 160 


Fig. 16c.—The Hermitage 


western origin among the people who were parts of the Hittite 
confederacy. The baskets which they carry, and the entire attitude 
can be explained only by considering those elaborate Assyrian 


374 SEALS IN THE HERMITAGE MUSEUM 


cylinders and bas-reliefs on which such figures stand before the 
sacred tree, better the tree of life, in which the lifted hand has 
taken the fruit from the tree to put it in the basket, thus assuring 
the portion of life and fortune for the possessor of the seal. Here 
the tree is missing, but the winged disk that belongs over it is 
there and so are the guardian spirits. The fish is common on 
these seals, although its meaning is not quite clear. The seven 
dots are the sibitti, the gods Igigi. We notice also the border- 
lines which never appear on the true Babylonian cylinders. This 
cylinder is figured by Lajard, Pl. XVII, 8. 


Fig. 17.—The Hermitage 


In Fig. 17 we have a good example of the late Babylonian type 
of the second empire of Nebuchadnezzar and his successors. These 
cylinders are usually large, following a shape and size that came 
in with the Kassite period. The objects represented are a worshiper 
and the emblems of his gods, in this case the crescent of Sin and 
the thunderbolt of Adad; but instead of the simple column sur- 
mounted by the emblems which we should find on the Assyrian 
and western seals we have the extraordinary and enigmatic con- 
structions shown here. We cannot but compare these emblems 
with those of the gods which we see on the kudurrus of the 
Kassite period. But here the divine seat (muSab) is modified, 
and instead of the turban above it we have the oval object with 
the ladder-like design along its length. 1 cannot conceive what 
this can represent unless it be a modified and corrupted form of 
the turban, and used to support the particular emblem of the 
god. 


WILLIAM Hayes Warp 375 


In Fig. 18 we come to what is distinctly of the Persian period. 
This is evident from the elongated wings of the winged disk, and 
might be gathered from what we may take for the fire-altar, 


Fic. 18.—The Hermitage 


although the upper portion looks more like a plant with its bud. 
A plant of that shape is not unfamiliar, however, but without the 
column; and I have been inclined to see in it the famed Silphium 
which was such an article of commerce, or some similar plant. 
The ibex, so frequently seen on the cylinders, requires no com- 
ment. The wild boar is less common, although the Babylonian 
god Ninshakh carried the name of this destructive animal, as 
Nergal was the god of the lion. Two cylinders of the same period 
in the Metropolitan Museum show the hunting of the wild boar, 
one of them (Fig. 19) with dogs. Yet another cylinder in the 


Fie. 19.—Metropolitan Museum 


same Museum has simply fifteen swine divided in three registers 
of five each. But in this last case the cylinder is probably not 
Persian, Babylonian, or Assyrian, but belongs to one of the out- 
lying provinces. 


376 SEALS IN THE HERMITAGE MUSEUM 


Another cylinder, which we may call Syro-Hittite, or perhaps 
Syro-Phoenician, is shown in Fig. 20. It has the extraordinary 
design of a winged goddess with twisted legs. She is nude, and 


Fic. 20.—The Hermitage 


raises her hands toward the winged disk above, in an attitude not 
unfamiliar in certain composite figures under the winged disk, as 
if supporting it. On each side of her stands an attendant, nude, 
female figure. The remainder of the design is taken up with 
an elaborate tree of life, with a deer, a sphinx and an ibex on 
each side of it, as they are frequently seen on the Syro-Hittite 
cylinders. 

I recall -but one other cylinder which shows us this goddess 
with the twisted legs, that seen in Fig. 21; although very likely 


Fig. 21.—British Museum 


the goddess in a seated attitude, with crossed legs, not winged, 
and lifted by two stalwart, nude, male figures seen in Catalogue de 
Clercq, No. 357, may be the same. In Fig. 21, but not in Fig. 20, 


WILLIAM Hayes Warp 377 


the goddess is provided with an extra joint in the legs. There is 
no means of learning what goddess is intended, or what is the 
meaning of the twisted legs. We may conceive that it indicates 
her virginal character, as against the idea of 
wantonness conveyed in Ezek. 16:25. The at- 
tendant figures in Fig. 20, the body human and 
with two heads, one of a stag and one of an 
ibex, are utterly foreign to the art of Babylonia, 
Assyria, and Persia, and must have come, 
through the influence of an Egyptian sugges- 
tion, from a Mesopotamian or Syrian source of 
a comparatively late period, as indicated, among 
other things, by the Persian shape of the winged Fr tit Pcce 
disk. The arch about the goddess in Fig. 21, 

while composed of squares, yet is derived from the guilloche or 
rope-pattern, of Hittite art, which is yet a perversion of the 
Mycenean scroll pattern. 


Of the so-called Assyrian cone-seals a very few require notice. 
The great majority of these seals show great paucity of design, 
perhaps the majority of them having nothing else than a worshiper 
before the columns or asheras, of Marduk and Nebo. 

But in Fig. 22 we have, next to the worshiper, the column of 
Marduk, rudely, as often, engraved with the drill to make a circle 
instead of the spear-point when cut with the 
free hand; then the double column of Nebo, 
and then a third column, the identification of 
which is not yet possible to me. It does not 
occur frequently, but we occasionally have it, 
as we have that of Sin shown by his cres- 
cent, and of Adad by his thunderbolt sur- 
mounting the column. Under the three 
asheras is the animal properly belonging 
only to Marduk and Nebo. 

Another cone-seal of more unusual design 
is given in Fig. 23. Here the worshiper stands before the seated 
goddess who is identified by her dog with the curled tail as Gula. 
It is only in the Northern Kingdom, and the adjacent countries 


Fic. 23 
The Hermitage 


818 SEALS IN THE HERMITAGE MUSEUM 


that we find the high-backed chair precisely like the old-fashioned 
rush-bottomed chairs of our grandmothers’ chambers. There may 
be some confusion between Gula and Ishtar here, for the knobs back 
of the chair, and perhaps adorning the top of her tiara, represent 
the stars seen with the seated goddess on the cylinders. There are 
two Ishtars, one of Nineveh and the other of Arbela, and we do 
not know whether they were differently figured; one certainly was 
standing. We shall probably do better, notwithstanding the stars, 
to connect this seated goddess, here Gula, with Belit or the Mother 
Goddess Ma, of Asia Minor. The identification of the deities 
of one religion with those of another is hazardous and confusing. 


Fic. 24.—Berlin Museum 


What is quite peculiar here is that the dog is led by a cord attached 
to the collar about his neck. I have not observed that before, but 
Adad frequently holds his bull by a cord attached to a ring in his 
nose as described in Job. 41:2. The crescent of Sin on this seal 
is plain enough, but the rhomb below it yet needs explanation. 
Since Lenormant’s time it has been regarded as the female emblem, 
but I know of no reason for attaching it to ancient symbolism. 
The Assyrian and Babylonian art was never vulgar, any more than 
was the Persian. The phallus is never figured as it was in Egypt, 
and it is hardly likely that the rhomb represents the vulva. It may 
have come, with other motifs from the Egyptian, and may repre- 
sent the eye. Ona cylinder in the Berlin Museum, Fig. 24, we 
have this seated goddess with her dog, instead of the more usual 
lion, associated with Adad and his bull. Here the stars are fully 
developed and it is natural to call the goddess Ishtar, although 
the dog indicates Gula. 


WILLIAM Hayes Warp 379 


One other interesting cone-seal is shown in Fig. 25, a and b, 
where we see on one side of the cone the two columns of Marduk 
and Nebo, and on the other two gods, of whom the lion-headed 


Fic. 25a.—The Hermitage Fic, 25b.—The Hermitage 


one may be Nergal; the other cannot be identified. The former 
is precisely like what we have seen in Fig. 7; but there it can 
hardly be Nergal. At any rate, we know of no myth in which he 
was haled before a god for judgment. There is another cone seal 
in the Hermitage which gives the same two figures, but one on 
each side of the seal. 

Of the many Persian and Sassanian seals in the Hermitage 
collection only one is here given, in Fig. 26. It is an excellent 
example of the fire-altar, with the king, one may suppose, or a 


eal 


Fig. 26.—The Hermitage Fie. 27.—Metropolitan Museum 


priest, standing by it in an attitude of worship, and repeated for 
symmetry. The altar is much like that seen on a cylinder in 
Fig. 27 with which should be compared the more elaborate, but 
different, fire-altar in Fig 28. 


880 SEALS IN THE HERMITAGE MUSEUM 


It is greatly to be desired that the large collections in the 
British Museum, the Louvre, the Bibliothéque Nationale, the 
Berlin Museum, and the Metropolitan Museum should be pub- 
lished in heliogravure. Only one large collection has as yet been 
made accessible to scholars, that belonging to the late M. de Clercq, 
although a few small public and private collections have appeared, 
like those of The Hague, the Joanneum of Graz, the Cypriote 
cylinders collected by di Cesnola, and those belonging to M. 
Pauvert de la Chapelle and Sir Henry Peek. Great treasures are 
yet hidden in museum-drawers and unavailable to scholars. 


Fic. 28.—Bibliothéque Nationale 


SOME CASSITE AND OTHER CYLINDER 
SEALS 


IRA MAURICE PRICE 


ie 


. ἷ be are 
, ᾿ my) a ὶ 
; ἜΣ τὴν πο ΣΝ la 
ἢ οὐ Ta, 
i ree 
iy te Bee αν 
Pi Fea wrt) a 5 
τ eh Sale ay A ey) eo “ἀν ΒΝ 
i ᾿ "ry ¢ ΐ La! or a mish ee 
118 ἌΣ ᾿ 
Ν 
Vis ‘ ’ ᾿ ᾿ Pi a 
: ' is 
: δ "Ὁ" a) ew eh 5 Ue 
x iW 
MS ee 22 ἡμὴ ie ΓΑ 
> 
i>) “Ὁ ‘i δ f 
ἱ < 
‘ 
ἐν ἣν . ) 
2 , ΤῊ he i 
¥ ad 
᾿ 
“gf ; 
: 
( 
4 
1 
— si ὑπ 
ι 
πῶ 
i Ν ι 
. ᾿ Ἂ 
i 
“- Ay 
i 
᾿ i 
I . 
at _ 
1 
a -- 
a Ψ 
5 Ἕ 
So 
4 
ὠ , 
‘ 7 ‘ τ 
= 
i 
a 
’ > 
τ 
ἢ 
Pd 
i 
2 " ε 


SOME CASSITE AND OTHER CYLINDER SEALS 


Ira Maurice Price 


INTRODUCTION 


The development of the science of Assyriology in its broadest 
sense has brought to the front in recent years the cylinder seal. 
These little remnants of the great civilizations of the past bear a 
very definite and specific message to students of the Orient. 
They touch every phase of the public and private life of the men 
and women who administered the affairs of the state, of religion, 
and of the social sphere. They carry on their faces the ruling 
superstitions and mythologies that so largely influenced the life 
of the times. They gleam with the names of the divinities who 
were reverenced and worshiped by the leaders of state and religion. 
They give us hints as to the relative importance of the divinities 
in different periods of history. The proper names found on them 
reveal, now and then, the period of history to which they are 
to be assigned. 

Another province of investigation likewise gathers some hints 
from these bits of precious stones, viz., language. The variety 
of combinations of ideographs and syllables is something quite 
confusing. Some of these seals are written wholly in the non- 
Semitic tongue, others are good Semitic inscriptions. In both 
we find instructive variations and combinations that give the seals 
a unique value as revealers of linguistic peculiarities and brief 
succinct statement. 

Another feature of the study of seal cylinders has attracted 
the attention of artists. How did they execute their work on the 
hardest of stones? What kind of tools enabled them to cut such 
fine, sharp lines as we discover on the majority of the better pre- 
served seals? And then, again, whence came the great variety of 
material used for seals? There was an abundance, apparently, of 
precious stones for all such purposes. 

These were found, prepared, and used with a facility that 

383 


884 Some CASSsITE AND OTHER CYLINDER SEALS 


bespeaks the steady progress of art in those early civilizations. 
Their presence today, though seemingly of slight importance, 
promises, from a comprehensive study, some extremely valuable 
results touching the national, religious, social, and commercial life 
of every period of pre-Christian history in the Babylonian valley. 

The seal inscriptions presented in this article are some of the 
collection gathered by Dr. William Hayes Ward for his forth- 
coming work to be issued by the Carnegie Institution and were 
kindly placed by him in the hands of the writer. As will be seen, 
they are both Semitic and non-Semitic, and belong mainly to the 
Cassite period of history. 

I have given fac-similes of the text in every case. And imme- 
diately thereunder, I have transliterated each inscription, and 
translated it, sometimes provisionally, giving only such notes as 
would seem to be necessary to justify the accompanying transla- 
tion. If anything within the inscription seems to be of especial 
interest it is discussed immediately thereafter, thus completing the 
study of each individual inscription before proceeding to the next. 
Some of the texts are so brief and difficult that little can be made 
out of them except a proper name or two. Still these may be a 
clue at some future time to an important discovery. 

It will be seen that most of these inscriptions are now pub- 
lished for the first time, and thus form an addition to the extant 
seal cylinder literature. 

The Cassite seal cylinders herein presented represent some of 
the longest seal inscriptions of the period. They constitute a 
class quite unique in character, being composed in characters 
representative of Babylonian rather than Assyrian cuneiform writ- 
ing. The inscription, too, is more important than the mytho- 
logical figures which are reduced in almost all such cases to a 
minimum of space. We are just beginning to ascertain the real 
value of these seals, and as soon as they shall have received the 
attention due them, they will doubtless introduce us to a side of 
official life in Babylonia about which we have known very little. 

In the reading of some of these seals I must express my grati- 
tude to Mr. L. W. King of the British Museum for his kind sug- 
gestions and help. 


Ira Maurice PRICE 385 


INSCRIPTIONS, TRANSLATIONS, AND NOTES 


No. 1 
(Field Museum, Chicago) 


WK A ΕΞ RK > 
HE KE i> Be 
ΔΈ HD a 
Gel ΕΥ̓͂ ARK νη» 
SHEDS ἢ 


ldingitNin-BK-an-na 
*tab-ni-i tab-bi-i 
3us-ri gi-im-li’ 
“ἃ Su-zi-bi? 
Sarad pa-li-ib-ki 


1Qh, goddess of E-an-na, ?thou hast made (him), thou hast called 
(him); *guard (him), protect (him), ‘and spare (him for a long life), the 
servant who fears thee. 


This beautiful little seal is the gist of simplicity. It is an 
appeal to the goddess of H-an-na. She is addressed as the 
creator and the caller of the suppliant, and on these grounds is 
appealed to, to guard, protect, and spare him for a long life. 

E-an-na was a temple frequently mentioned in many of the 
oldest inscriptions of Babylonia. It was a heavenly temple in 
Lagash, built by E-an-na-tum for the goddess Inninna (cf. 
Stéle of Vultures, Col. IV, 5,6; V, 26-29). Dungi built a temple 
of B-an-na for Inninna (CT, XXI, Pl. 10, No. 90,887). Gudea 
built such a temple for the same goddess (Déc. Pl. 13, No. 1); 


lgamalu=' protect,’ ‘keep,’ ‘preserve,’ DAL, pp. 221 f. 


2 Vezébu, ‘rescue,’ ‘save,’ ‘deliver,’ ‘spare.’ 


386 SoME CASSITE AND OTHER CYLINDER SEALS 


as also did Bur-Sin, king of Ur (CT, III, No. 12,156). Sin- 
gasid likewise erected an E-an-na in Uruk to the goddess 
Inninna (ΟἽ, XXI, Pl. 12, No. 90,267). When we come 
down to later Babylonian times we find that Nebuchadrezzar 
built a temple at the very side of the wall of Babylon to Nin- 
f-an-na (EIH, IV, 44-48; V R. 34, II, 9-11; ef. PSBA, 
XXII, 359, 1. 14). 

These references confirm the view that the temple of K-an-na 
was the temple of the goddess Inninna so often referred to in 
the earlier periods of history. Cf. Surpu, II, 168. 

If, however, we should read, Nin-lil-an-na, and translate: 
“ΟἿ, goddess Belit, the exalted,” we should then probably regard 
this Belit as a consort of Bel. 

The position of Belit in the pantheon of Babylonia, as the 
consort of Bel, would give added significance to the reading of 
this seal cylinder. 

She is described under several different names on the material 
available for our study. Being the consort of Bel she is called 
“the mother of gods” (Jensen, Kosmologie, p. 294, Rem.); “the 
governess of the gods” (II R. 55, α-ὦ, 9-19); “the governess of 
the heavens” (BA, Vol. II, p. 634) ; “the governess of the living” 
(III R. 66, ὃ, 7); “the great governess” (II R. 49, c-d,6). As 
a variant for her name in Asurb. X, 52, we find ilat Istar, prob- 
ably making her an equivalent to the goddess of the under- 
world. She was also worshiped under the name of NIN-HAR-SAG, 
“the goddess of the great mountains,’ which accords with the 
appellation of Bel as “the god of the great mountain” (V R. 44, 
c—d, 41). 

The temple of Belit was in Nippur where she was worshiped 
by the earlier rulers of the country. 

For a full list of references, cf. Muss-Arnolt, Dictionary of the 
Assyrian Language, p. 1706; and a full discussion of her attri- 
butes, Jastrow, Die Religion Babyloniens und Assyriens (1905), 
pp. 55 f. 

Her popularity is attested by a large number of proper names, 
even in later Babylonian, in which her name is a constituent 
element; cf. Tallqvist, Newbabylonisches Namenbuch, pp. 37, 38. 


Ira MaAvuRIce PRICE 887 


No. 2 
(British Museum) 


He EIA KK »Φ 
ἘΡΡΕΞΕΙΗΡΕΒΗ͂ 


HY EE BET Ih GE 
SAYVILLE 


HH SHA Er 
n> KTS χορ 


ldingir Nijn-K-an-na 
2tab-ni-i tab-bi-i-su 
8yi-mi-i ra-a-mi 
fus-ri gi-im-li 

δὰ Su-zi-i-bi-Su 
Sarad IM-TUK IM-TUK*-zU 


10h, goddess of Bi-an-na, ?thou hast made, thou hast called him, 
grant (him) favor, ‘guard (him), protect (him), °and spare him (for a 
long life), the servant who devoutly reverences thee. 


No. 2 is almost the same as No. 1, with some peculiar additions. 
The second line adds a suffix as an object to the second verb, and 
the fifth line one to its only verb, both referring to the suppliant. 
The third line is new, not being found in No.1. The last line is 
written ideographically, but is equivalent to the syllabic Semitic 
word that makes up the fifth line of No.1. The import of the 
seal is practically the same as that of No. 1, setting forth the 
pre-eminence of the goddess in determining the origin, life, and 
destiny of the suppliant. 


3IM-TUK = palahu ‘fear,’ ‘reverence,’ ‘worship,’ ef. DAL, pp. 804 ff, 


888 ΞΟΜΕ CASSITE AND OTHER CYLINDER SEALS 


No. 3 
(W. H. Ward, No. 1162) 


WE PH IT ie od 
LON TET HEY EY 
EK > 
DIE Deh ᾧ 
YY SY »- 
ἘΞ > ey By 


idingir Ν Ὶ ἢ - Εἰ - ἃ ἢ - ἢ 8 
2us-ri gi-mil 
38u-zi-bi 

farad pa-li-ib-ki 
5mZa-ab-ru 

Sablu In-dim-ge 


10h, goddess of H-an-na, *guard, preserve, *spare (him for a long 
life), ‘the servant who fears thee, °Zabru, °the son of Indim. 


This seal, though dedicated to the goddess of H-an-na, has 
nothing to say about her creative or elective powers. It merely 
appeals to her ability to guard, preserve, and prolong the life 
of the suppliant. On this seal we find the name of the owner or 
dedicator of it. While these three seals (1-3) are dedicated to 
the same goddess, they were probably the property of different 
persons, who largely followed the conventional forms for the 
execution of their inscriptions. Their language is Semitic, and 
their grammatical forms are substantially regular, even though 
the thought is greatly condensed. 

It is fortunate that three seals so nearly the same should be 
brought together and presented in the same pages; and seals, too, 
that reveal so many powers of the goddess of H-an-na, the 
goddess Inninna. 


Ina Maurice PRICE 389 


No. 4 
(No. 97, Mrs. Rowe) 


Ὲ ὁ  & ee 
b- wet Ἂς 
rk  & + 
Ἐξ ἊΣ 
* Ke eE 


1 ME-NA-RU-UP-TUM 
2martu Ba-a-zi 
ΞΝΙΝ ™ AK-DI-KUD 
‘amat dingirBappar 
δὰ dingirMar-tu 


~~ 


’Menaruptum, *daughter of Bazi, *lady of Nabti-daian, ‘handmaid of 
the god Shamash ‘and of the god Adad. 


This seal belonged to a woman who may have been an attend- 
ant in the temple service. Her mother (apparently) is mentioned 
because of her prominent place in the worship of Naba-daian 
(Nebo judges). This deity figures in late Babylonian.* This 
was also the name of an Assyrian king about 1250 B. c., whose 
name doubtless signified his reverence for and dependence upon 
the god Nebo, and his part in the affairs of men. 

The god translated Martu is now generally conceded to be 
syllabic or symbolic reading for Adad, who appears in some of 
the earliest literature in connection with Shamash. On this seal 
the two are mentioned together as gods whom this damsel served. 
The mention of the two together has its justification in the fact 
that the sun (Shamash) and the storm-god (Adad) must work 
together in producing for man and beast the necessary sustenance 
for life. Where one is worshiped for his benevolence toward 
mankind the other should not be omitted. For a full discussion 


4Cf. K. Tallqvist, Neubabylonisches Namenbuch (1905), p. 257. 


890 SomE CAssITE AND OTHER CYLINDER SEALS 


of the attributes of Adad, cf. Jastrow, Die Religion Babyloniens 
(1905), pp. 146-50. The presence of women in the temple and 
temple worship is especially noticeable in the laws of Hammurabi. 
She is there named ‘‘votary” and has laws prepared to meet her 
own peculiar conditions. She might have been dedicated by her 
father to Marduk of Babylon (law No. 182), in which case she 
was entitled to one-third of his estate on his death. She was 
exempt from taxes (No. 182). She usually lived in a convent, 
where she was amply protected by law (No. 110). She was free 
to marry, but there were specific regulations respecting her prop- ὁ 
erty rights (Nos. 145-47), and her estate could not be mortgaged 
or alienated (No. 178). For other regulations see The Laws of 
Hammurabi, Nos. 127, 180, 181, and 198. 


No. 5 
(Metropolitan Museum, No. 391) 


KO EE κα 
(iy 8K TOES Hey 
Box) > IRQ bey 
He] sto Sk fe 
ET A] oh ep 
ΗΕ LOK OE bo 
i a a 
ST Ep eed BaP 
EN <a 


Ira Maurice PRICE 891 


1dingir ApAD U MAB-DI 

27GALU SEK-SEK HE-NUN 

3GALU TE-DU SUD SA-NUN ZU 

* AKA-BI AN-SE-TIR 
5pa+KAB-+ DU BI GAR UKU-GA 
6 U-z1-AN-SU-TUH 

7pumu Bir-si-1 

SnitA BuR-NA-BU-RI-IA-AS 
*LUGAL Kis 


1To the god Adad, the exalted lord,’ ?who causes the rain to fall® in 
great abundance, *who brings down’ the high,’ who lifts up the spirit 
of thy great ones, ‘whose gift® is the grain,'® °which yields" wine and 
sustenance for the people. °U-zi-an-Su-tub, ‘son of Bishi, *servant of 
Burnaburiash, ‘king of Kish. 


This is an admirable seal-cylinder apparently of the time of 
a Bur-na-bu-ri-ash. Two Cassite kings of this name ruled in 
Babylonia. The first succeeded Kadashman-Bel about 1400 8. o., 
and was a contemporary of Puzur-Asshur of Assyria, and of 
Amenophis III of Egypt. Little is known of his reign. He 
was a builder of temples, as seen in the fact that he erected at 
Larsa a temple to the sun-god.” The so-called Bur-na-bu-ri- 
ash II, according to Clay,” ruled twenty-five years. He was a 
contemporary of Amenophis IV, and sent to the latter several 
Babylonian letters.* The city Kish, of which he is said to have 
been king, was probably located northeast of Babylon, not far 
from Cutha. 

The translation is, of course, quite provisional because of the 
strangeness of some of the combinations of signs. The deity to 
whom the seal is dedicated is Adad, the thunderer, the weather 
god, upon whose activity depended the crops of the field, and the 
consequent prosperity of the nation. The notes at the bottom of 

5MAH-DI=tizkaru, ‘high,’ ‘exalted,’ ‘lofty,’ DAL, 1150a. 

6 SEK-SEK = zan4nu, ‘rain,’ ‘pour down water,’ cf. Br. 11399, and 11402. 

7TE = dibu, ‘throw,’ ‘ pull down.’ 8ηὺ =610, ‘high,’ IT R. 30, 189. 

9AKA=ramu, ‘gift,’ ‘present,’ DAL, 9618. 

10 AN-SH-TIR = aSnan, Br. 7484; DAL, 116b; cf. AN-SE-TIR-AN-NA=aSnan; Meissner, 
Seltene assyrische Ideogramme, No. 385; cf. No. 384. 

1pa+xKaB+pu=S5araku, ‘give,’ ‘bestow,’ ‘yield,’ DAL, pp. 1117 ff, 


12Cf.1R. 4, XIII. 13 BE, XIV, pp. 3-5. 
14Cf, Harper, Assyrian and Babylonian Literature, pp. 220f. 


392 Some CASSITE AND OTHER CYLINDER SEALS 


the page point out the authority for the several uncertain render- 
ings. The reading of the name of the owner of the seal is quite 
uncertain, though we must find here a proper name. 


No. 6 
(Metropolitan Museum, No. 392) 


Keg] RAE Εὖ κὸ 
RAN HOTTER TF 
Mn PRS HIKE 
PIP Te ray 
PRE 240% pik SPARK 
“ag -S «ΞΕ mY 
Ere FF oF 
BI 4 GEL) BSR 


1dingir$4-70 EN GIR! BABBAR!°-SAR 
2p1!"-KUD KUR-KUR SI-DI-DI!*-4 AN-KI-A 
3sI-GA NAM-TI DINGIRENE BUR!®-TUK 
4eL”-a NITA’ IM-TUK-ZU 

>HE-GUB HE-NUN-MU HE-TUK 

6 m'T'U-NA-MI-GE 

‘pumu ™ Pa-a-RI 

8GALU MU-NI-PAD UKU HE-SI”! 


lgirR=gaSsru ‘mighty,’ ‘strong,’ cf. Br. 9183. 

16BABBAR=pisf ‘light,’ ‘brightness,’ cf. Br. 7788. 

17 The original here reads SA, which is evidently a scribal error for DI, as the entire 
context seems to point out. 

18 sI-pDI-DI=SutéSuru ‘make orestablish right,’ Br. 3463. 

19puR=baru ‘child,’ ‘son,’ ‘offspring,’ cf. DAL, p. 187a. 

20mL=alalu ‘make brilliant,’ ‘glorious,’ cf. Br. 11174; DAL, p. 466. 

231=napas8u ‘become broad,’ ‘extended,’ ‘enlarge,’ ‘increase,’ cf. Br, 9278; DAL, 
p. 710. 


Ira Maurice Prior 898 


'To the god Marduk, the mighty lord, light of the multitudes, 
“judge of (all) lands, who establishes right in heaven and on earth, 
3 giver of life to τς gods, his own offspring. *Make glorious the servant 
who fears thee, °may he be illustrious! may his name be magnified! 
may he be wise! °Tunamige, ‘son of Pari, §a man called (to his position) 
by the people, may he increase! 

This seal cylinder is one of those found by General di Gesnola 
in Cyprus. It was published by Sayce in T'SBA, Vol. V (1877), 
pp. 448, 444. Since that far-off day we have discovered and 
identified many new signs, and can therefore give a more correct 
rendering of all old Babylonian inscriptions. This inscription, 
large for a seal cylinder, was prepared in praise of the god Mar- 
duk, the patron deity of Babylon. To him are assigned an array 
of brilliant attributes and powers, which he employs in dealing 
with the peoples of the world, his own creatures. Because of the 
noble attributes and character of Tunamige, he is said to have 
been named by the people (for his position, whatever it may have 
been). Marduk’s™ position in the days of Hammurabi was that 
of a mediator between the people and his father Ea. 


No. 7 
(W. H. Ward, No. 1004) 


Ty ee TW ne oy 
HOR pr bbe 
τον ρον ts Seon ta 

oe ee wae g 


22 For a fall discussion of the attributes of Marduk, cf. Jastrow, Babylonische Religion, 
pp. 110-15. 


394 Some CASSITE AND OTHER CYLINDER SEALS 


1 MA-AN-BAR-GI-NI- πεῖς -Mar[ Duk] 

815 SU-BU-BU 

Spumu I-ri-Ba 428'T Marpuk 

*7pr [-581-ἸΝ Εἰ 

ὅ1-}1-ἀ8- ae): 

κα dingir pa ki 

Tgaa-aRaAD SA “ngir MarpuK 

δὰ 

9 dingir GU-LA 23 

1Ma-an-bargini-Marduk *the diviner™ *son of Ivriba-Marduk ‘family 

of Isin *born® δα Babylon, ‘chief servant of the god Marduk ‘and 
®*the goddess Gula. 


The inscription on this seal is full of interest. The proper 
name in the first line contains the name of the god Marduk. The 
combination of the second line points out that this personage be- 
longs to the bart-priest or diviner class, an individual of prime 
importance in the ritual of the Babylonian religion. For a full 
discussion of his functions and a mass of other references see 
Zimmern.” The third line contains another name in which Mar- 
duk is one of the constituent elements. The fourth line mentions 
that ancient city to which frequent reference is made, but of which 
we know so little, Isin, as the home of the family of Iriba-Mar- 
duk. The fifth line seems to have some such sense as that given 
it in the translation, the last sign, however, being uncertain. 
Babylon, of course, seems to be one of the cities with which this 
family was connected, and Marduk and Gula are named as the 
divinities especially reverenced by the owner of the seal. 

Of the divinities mentioned on this seal Gula is identical with 
Bau (V R. 31, a-b, 58; IV R. 326, 39-40) the consort of Nin- 
gir-su, that is, Ninib. Gula is then the consort of Ninib, and 
occupies the same place in the pantheon of Hammurabi, that Bau” 


23The peculiar position of the ἃ dingirGuLA between the seated figure and the suppliant 
indicates probably that these should follow the last line of the inscription engraved in solid 
column, just as indicated in the transliteration and translation. 

24pIR SU-BU-BU=barft (VR. 13, 44d; cf. also Br. 2034) ‘seer,’ ‘diviner,’ ‘magician,’ a 
title that designates this personage as belonging to the official class. Cf. H. Zimmern, 
Beitrdge zur Kenntniss der babylonischen Religion, pp. 82-89. 

20 The meaning of the fifth line is problematical. The form, if derived from aladu 
is peculiar, still the sense seems to be served by the meaning given it in this rendering, 

26H. Zimmern, Beitrdge zur Kenntniss der babylonischen Religion, pp. 82-89. 

27Cf. Jastrow, Babylonische Religion, pp. 58 f. 


Ira MAvuRICE PRICE 895 


does in the galaxy of divinities of the Gudean period. The pres- 
ence of her name on this seal probably locates it about Hammu- 
rabi’s day. The mention of Isin likewise sets it back to a time 
prior to the fall of that ancient center of religious and political 
power in lower Babylonia. 

The use of Marduk as a constituent element of proper names 
in Babylonian, especially in the new Babylonian period is attested 
by the occurrence of about three hundred such names in the lists 
of Tallqvist.* 


No. 8 
(British Museum) 


SK OGG ERY cRH >) 
Be καὶ REY oe x By 
mek πῇ tH hE & 


KF leony BK ἨΠ 
DE ED ᾧ κα mh 
EE Hey ere i> 


idingir Dim” -KI-RA-DUR-NA 
2rprLA®” sag dingir Kur-GAL-GE 
3HE-BABBAR HE-NUN HE-DI 
4UD-MES TI-LA HE-DIRIG*™ 
5GAR-TUK DUG-GA SA-GAR-BI 
®‘\ME-ME ISIB TAG-SID NE-GAR 


1To Dim-ki-ra-dur-na, ?chief son of Amurru®” *may he be illustrious! 
may he be great! may he be victorious! ‘With days of life may he be 
blessed! °(and) with rich abundance for his necessities!* ° As a charm, 
(this) seal was made. 


28 Neubabylonisches Namenbuch, pp. 99-110. 
29For this reading, cf. Amiaud and Mechineau, Tableau comparé, No. 151; also 


Thureau-Dangin, Recherches sur UV origine de Vécriture cunéiforme, Nos. 12 and 155; Gudea 
Cyl. B, XII, 12. 


301BILA=aplu, Br. 4118; cf. AJSL, XVIII, p. 154. 

31pIRIG =ataru ‘add,’ ‘increase,’ ‘multiply,’ DAL, 188α. 

32 dkuR-GAL=Amurru, Olay in BE, XIV, viii; JAOS, XXVIII, p. 140. 
33 SA-GAR=bubatu ‘hunger,’ ‘need,’ ‘necessity,’ Br. 8085. 
34mm=Siptu ‘exorcism,’ ‘incantation,’ ‘charm.’ 


396 Some CASSITE AND OTHER CYLINDER SEALS 


This little seal contains some difficulties and uncertainties. 
The reading of the proper name in the first line is not certain, 
though the second sign is fixed by Gudea, Cyl. B, XII, 12. The 
last line, too, has some obscurities. The use of ME twice and of 
the term (8) which designates stone, abnu, gives us a hint that this 
tablet may have been used as a charm or exorcism, if the proposed 
translation be correct. The proper names here are quite unique, 
if properly translated. Amurru figures as the one deity named. 
The whole inscription is written in ideographic or non-Semitic 
form. 


No. 9 
(W. H. Ward, No. 888) 


KE HIT aK of; 
wat κΚ καὶ wy 
bY MK XE 
a 3 HIN RY 


1uop-um dingir,..,.... 
2pumu Sia dingirSa-zu 
3nira’ dingir Apap 

‘y dingirNin-E-an-n{[a] 


1Udum .... 2son of Iddin-Marduk, ‘servant of Adad, ‘and Belit, 
the exalted. 


Though only four lines in length, we find on this little seal 
the names of three divinities, and a fragment of a fourth. They 
were all prominent in the pantheon of Babylonia in the Cassite 
period, and full sets of references for their study have been cited 
in the preceding pages dealing with the seals of this article. 


Ina Μαάῦβιοε PRICE 397 


No. 10 
(Henry Swoboda of Bagdad [chalcedony] ) 


TARDY & b> 
ST 


eT ET EP ad] 


1mTe-ri-ma-an-gar 

2pumu ™Gis-kur-an-S8i-da-da® 
SNI-KA-MA τ τ 0.20 
*saq-T1®-up*-dingir]§raR 

5aRAD πὶ Ku-RI-GAL-ZU 


1Terimangar ?son of GiSkuransidada*....... ‘chief official of 
the shrine of Istar *servant of Ku-ri-gal-zu. 


This seal specifies the owner as the servant of one of the great 
kings, or one of the same name, of the Cassites who ruled about 
the first half of the fourteenth century B. o.* The loss of the third 
line breaks seriously into the sense of the seal, and leaves us 
quite in the dark as to what it could have been. Just such seals 
as this one give us little hints at the regal life and personages of 


these early periods. 


35 DA-DA, a very frequent constituent element of proper names in the RFH texts. 
36 SAG-TI — r6§u, ‘head,’ ‘chief officer,’ ‘ official,’ Br., Index, p. 58. 

376 = kissu, ‘residence,’ ‘dwelling,’ ‘shrine,’ DAL, 425b. 

38 Kurigalzu I began to reign 1410 B. Ο. 


898 ΞΟΜῈ CassITE AND OTHER CYLINDER SEALS 


No. 11 
(Henry Swoboda of Bagdad [porphyry] ) 


Ser ef FE ET Y 
Souk PY ey 


- HA nT XM 
ΡΞ π5.. ἢΞ 
Ky «E> PPM 
rT ΕΠ τ᾽ 
IC «ole pry RL 


1dingir Hn-zu-i-ku-un 
*pasisu™® dingir NIN-LIL 
βλἔτθλα 6 B-kur 

* NIN-A-NI-IR 
5UD-MES-BI..... sup” 
Snr-La si-a‘ 

idingir Be] ἀϊπρὶτ κατ, τῦκ “3 


1Sin-i-ku-un, ?the priest of Belit, *exalted son, lord of Ekur,* ‘may 
his goddess *his days cheer ‘and life prolong! ‘The god Bel, the god 
ΚΑΤ -τῦκ. 


If the first sign in the second line is as read it is somewhat 
defectively written, though the sense accords fully with such an 
hypothesis. The presence of the name Belit and Ekur and Bel 
displays some interesting religious facts. These two divine names 
have been already referred to as constituting two of the chief 
divinities of Nippur, the seat of their temples. 


39 Thureau-Dangin, Recherches, No. 211. 409suD=araku, ‘prolong,’ ‘extend.’ 

41 51-Α is used in the sense of ‘prolong’ (Br. 3729); stIG-GA is used in the sense of enésu 
‘go into a state of decay’ (Br. 3384); cf. En-an-na-tum (SA, p. 52, 8), Col. Il, 4; cf. Rim-Sin, 
No. VIII, 35, which may be read: ‘In future (DIRIG) days, when that platform foundation 
and that temple shall have fallen into decay,’ etc.; cf. also Rim-Sin, No. XI, 12. 

42 KAL-TUK, Br. 6228. 

43 For full set of references on E-kur, see DAL, p. 37. 


IrA Maurice PRICE 899 


Νο. 12 
(British Museum) 


mB AE BY 
mK ἢ. ἃ δ 


ERE Bit 
Dy KF YE ball 


€ Pepe ΦΧ 


IdingirSa-zu EN-GE 
2NUN-MES BAR AN-KI-A 
3NIN-A-NI-SU SIG*-A 
4nrva’ IM-TUK“*-zU 
°IGI-ZA HE-SIG* 


1To the god Marduk, lord of ?the mighty, ruler of heaven and earth, 
+o his sovereignty it (this seal) is dedicated (given). ‘Servant who fears 
thee, *may thine eyes be favorable (toward him). 


No. 13 
(Bibliothéque Nationale, No. 776) 


ke HOT (>> 
K KE (qe 
{QF RE ec ee 
κ᾿ RAT me ΕΥ̓ 
KTET aT IK νζ, 


44 Marduk, the god; ef, Cyprus seal, No. 6, 1. 1. 

ὅρια = kau, ‘give,’ ‘ present,’ ‘devote,’ etc.; cf. DAL, Ρ. 9340. 
46IM-TUK = palahu, ‘reverence,’ ‘worship,’ ‘serve.’ 

41 ἔτα -=damaku, ‘be favorable to,’ ‘ show favor,’ Br. 9445; DAL, s. v 


400 ΞΟΜῈ CASSITE AND OTHER CYLINDER SEALS 


\dingirstp ὁ SzeR* 

2dingirsag ὕ SAG 

3kaR* ZI-MES BA-TI-LA 

*GaR AN-GUR dingir gar-zu(!) 
ΑΘ ας πο PURE". anette 


‘To the god Marduk, the brilliant lord, *the firstborn god, the first- 
born lord, *who preserves in safety the souls of the living, ‘ ὃ 


The peculiar signs and combinations in the fourth and fifth 
lines are puzzling. The unconventional method of writing sac, 
for instance, leads us to expect some forms quite out of the 
ordinary. 


48SER=>naméA&ru, ‘shine,’ ‘be brilliant.’ 
49KAR=>etéru, ‘surround,’ ‘cover,’ ‘preserve in safety.’ 


f ᾿ . ia ; ; ees 4 e : 88 ; 
Every, . - 
ραν hag a ae ad pe eg 
ie) lon hia γώ δὰ at « | ve ὦ 


᾿ eee ἂν, id | Pan ee ΜᾺ al ᾿ Τ᾿ ἈΠ 
‘ [ I 
amy Ve τῳρβέυ 12 ἐὺ ye ι ' 


ρον Ξ 
> 7 
᾿ 
, = 
~ 
. 
a 
x 

ἔ 
Ἢ " 

᾿ 
; 

-" 
- 

᾿ 


Date Due 


7 10 


